On the contrary, Java is a very nice language in its core. It was dubbed C+- or C++ for lazies, and the language fits to this definition very nicely.

For most part, it can do a lot of things easily, but since it was a heavy language when the computers was as powerful as a Raspberry Pi (MK-I), it became infamous because of its resource usage.

This problem was compounded by Java's "conceal programmer's errors" mentality, especially in Java Swing. Swing has a very specific way of initializing things, and if you mix them up, Swing fixes them internally, but with a performance penalty. This results in performance penalties and increased resource usage.

As a result, Java was used as programmers' MATLAB for a decade or more. This is because it's very widespread, and very hard to monetize. It became a commodity runtime like Python in early 2000s (and Sun was actually happy about it).

Huh? I feel like this kind of emotional opinion can only come from someone that has little or no experience with Java beyond reading a few random blogs about it.

Yes, obviously anyone who doesn’t like Java is a moron, and couldn’t possibly have used Java, because it’s so perfect.

Java and its ecosystem is great. It helps our teams easily solve business problems. And at the end of the day, what matters is business needs, I'm really tired of all these purists trashing a great framework.

I've always said that Java is the best for solving organizational problems moreso than programming problems. In fact, I think the feature that catapulted it to the forefront was probably javadoc. The reality is that there is very little difference in the effectiveness of different program languages unless you're deep into niche problem domains. Java is a perfectly good general-purpose language with a powerful toolchain.

A) Java isn’t a framework.

B) Not liking Java doesn’t make someone a purist.

C) You can solve business problems in other languages besides Java. It’s a common misconception amongst Java programmers, I know.