The language perhaps doesn't, but most actual programs do. I'm definitely not going to write my own standard library just because I can.
Now what could the "RT" part possibly mean?
The OOP part is rather coherent; I'm not sure what's bolted on - any examples? In fact, things like object expressions do parts of OOP even better than Java/C#. Overall the syntax for OOP is rather concise and neat.
Having proper interop with .NET and hence the OOP is ... pretty key to making a successful .NET language. Otherwise you lose one major point of being able to use .NET libraries.
I'm saying I'm not sure why the OOP exists at all. Someone else pointed at that OCaml has those elements as well, and maybe that's the reason. Just in my own use, I never felt the inclination to use the OOP at all, and their existence felt like this part of the language that I didn't understand, didn't want to understand, but was there nonetheless.
That is like saying that we should developer Windows apps because you can always deploy using wine on other systems.
If you're calling into question the portability of Java, then I can run the same bytecode on Windows, Mac, Linux, the browser (in theory) and, with a little transpiling, my Android.
If you're saying that that priority of decision drivers is backward, then I disagree:
If you want to develop a Windows app you start by saying "I want to develop something on Windows because my clients/customers run Windows". Then you work out how to do it on Windows.
If you start out saying "I want to write an app that does X" then you have the freedom to choose what balance of priorities affect you, including whether or not portability matters.
(For the record, I don't particularly agree with this. It seems like you could level the same criticism at nearly any language that has one person or stable group controlling it — for example, you could just as validly call Rubinius "WINE for Ruby".)
> A language that has a choice of runtimes from a choice of vendors like Java?
At least historically it wasn't much of a choice and I wouldn't put it past Oracle to continue in this fashion.
Really, the JVM can be used for anything that _computers_ can be used for, and it does so in a way that the code is runnable across all major platforms and still maintains a top-5 language performance spot, even beating C/C++ in some specific cases.
Why do you feel that the JVM is limited in its applications as a development platform?
[1] http://blog.redfin.com/devblog/2010/05/how_and_why_twitter_u... [2] http://www.datomic.com/about.html [3] http://hadoop.apache.org/
Web server.
> and big-data next-generation databases [2]
Daemon.
> and android apps
No, Android doesn't have a JVM.
> and desktop apps
If you say so, I see very few of these in production.
> and big data
Daemon.
> Why do you feel that the JVM is limited in its applications as a development platform?
You can't write cli applications in a JVM language because the start-up time is too slow. Which means you can't compose scripts that call Java apps.
This is not just 1 type of application, it's the most important type of application by far. It's fundamental to how Unix operates. With Java you can't write small applications that do one thing well, you have to write big applications that are going to run for a very long time.
This is useful for things like web servers and daemons, but otherwise it sucks. It's why I can't get excited about JVM languages.
You're right. In the case of small, fast applications designed to be called as part of shell scripts, the JVM does suffer start-up costs. Some testing on my personal machine shows the JVM to be 2x to 8x slower than a comparable Ruby or Python script in startup time. [1] Depending on the script, that startup time may or may not acceptable, and if the script runs for longer than a second, which is entirely possible for anything that goes beyond the local machine, the JVM will get progressively faster.
> This is not just 1 type of application, it's the most important type of application by far.
This needs more explanation. I've used Unix for many years, and I've definitely bought in to its philosophy of small and composable; It's a philosophy that in many ways mirrors functional programming. However, in my opinion, the most important type of application varies considerably by person. For you, the small, single-purpose applications may be what you use most.
And I agree, if you're programming for the Unix platform, the JVM would not be the best choice. Unix was built on C. A program that builds on that platform is probably a better choice.
But there are many more applications out there, and for any command-line program that operate in a time domain longer than 10 seconds, the JVM startup costs are mostly eliminated. This time-domain is very plausible for a command that operates on medium-scale databases or anything with network connectivity.
It's silly to completely dismiss an entire platform because it is not the absolute best choice for a single domain of programs.
I'm curious: What do you do where the short-lived, composable Unix functions are the most important programs?
When you embrace this philosophy it doesn't particularly matter how good a language's ecosystem is, you have all of unix to interop with. For example, I don't care if a language has a good JSON parsing because jq[1] exists and is probably faster and easier to work with than just about any language's built in tools, even better than JavaScript itself.
With JVM you can't participate in writing software this way. Everything must revolve around the JVM and it's ecosystem.
The JVM and the Java ecosystem are basically all about long-running backend services. It's funny when you consider Java's roots as a simple language designed to enhance web pages.
I've never seen a AAA game written in Java. The non-deterministic GC is a dealbreaker as is the speed and space constraints of eg consoles.
The OP is generally correct: the JVM is a niche technology in a way. The Java ecosystem basically specialises in web apps and backend ESB-type stuff (shuttling data very quickly between heterogeneous applications). Of course, this is a very big, well-paying "niche" so it's not something to be afraid of.
That is the only example I can think of though, and it is certainly a stretch. (also their X-Box version isn't Java)
I would say compiled Scala runs well on the Dalvik VM.
All languages that do not need to generate (or load) class files at runtime should work well on Android. And that is because Dalvik does not run class files.
The whole point of the Frege project is to make up (insofar this is possible for a single person who is not SPJ) for the missing Haskell-JVM port.