Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjmlp | Hacker News Reader

Java was never created to sell Sun's IDE, regardless of the chosen IDE you always get same support.

C# was created to be the systems language of .NET, although the CLR supports other languages from day one.

Obligatory mention whenever anyone dicusses Sun's true motives for creating Java [1,2]. Sun's motives were anything but tidy. On Patrick Naughton's account, Sun's executive decision-making seems quite haphazard and opportunistic. Draw your own conclusions about the vagaries of individual perspectives or how typical this is of executive decision-making in general.

A line that might become amusing when you read the whole account:

> Thus began a long line of sporadic interjections by Bill [Joy| where he was right. He usually is.

[1]: http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/javaorigin.html

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30613578

Sun created Java to go against Microsoft, that isn't the discussion on the table, rather Kotlin and it being a guest language on the JVM, with a community that usually bashes the platform that made Kotlin possible to start with

It sounds like you are trying to find differences where there are none.

It also looks like you're forgetting that Java has been for years (decades) owned by Oracle, which is renowned for taking very public legal fights to milk Java to the extreme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....

Nah, that is Kotlin fanbase trying to move goalposts.

Java has been owned by Sun, and then Oracle, and it was more closed source during Sun's stewardship than Oracle's.

The first lawsuit was done by Sun against Microsoft, and they only missed the one against Google, because they were out of money by them.

Unfortunately Google got away with screwing up Sun, not happy with that, they keep using they flavoured Android Java when selling Kotlin's push into the ecosystem.

Still in all these years, Java was never used to sell Netbeans commercial licenses, regardless of how you to try to change the music.

> Still in all these years, Java was never used to sell Netbeans commercial licenses (...)

But that's completely irrelevant, isn't it? Cherry-picking aside, don't you understand how loss leaders work, and how companies use that strategy to push the sale of their cash cows?

Microsoft created the LSP to go against JetBrains :)

But Sun did invest in the creation and development of Java for the financial benefit of Sun. Jetbrains invested in Kotlin for the financial benefit of Jetbrains.

JetBrains wants to be like Borland, and like Borland is now getting beyond themselves and better not trip over.

Regardless, Jetbrains is in the business of selling dev tools. Any past present and future investment in Kotlin must be seen in this context.

They better take care not to fly too high with their Kotlin Platform.

what would flying too high mean in concrete terms? lock themselves into a tiny ecosystem?

> JetBrains wants to be like Borland, and like Borland is now getting beyond themselves and better not trip over.

I don't understand what Borland's history has to do with JetBrains' decision to invest their resources on adding support for a programming language to a third-party text editor.

Sounds like a non-sequitur of an unwarranted cheap shot that adds nothing to the discussion besides noise.

Touch grass. JetBrains is trying to be like Borland in the sense that JetBrains is doing with Kotlin what Borland did with Delphi. Create their own all-in-one-place programming ecosystem. You can see it slowly coalescing.

C# and .Net was for a very long time a Windows only thing, they were created to fight against Java so Microsoft can keep selling Windows licenses.

IMO this Microsoft stupidity to not open source .Net and FUD the open source alternatives costed them and the entire dev community a lot, we would have a good alternative for cross platform high level languages with a big framework (as alternative to JS+node+electron+npm+framewoks)

First class languages for the Windows Platform.

Sure, but they linked a good dev platform with an OS, this prevented .Net to become a much more used platform because most developers developed for Linux server using anything else then .Net (java,PHP,Python or the super shitty at that time JS and node). The open source community might have implemented an open alternative but only some parts of the language and platforms were open and there was a lot of fear that Mono that implemented some non open API could be a liability.

I personally was a big fan of C# and I can't forgive MS stupidity , because of the Windows Team a good language and platform was sabotaged, as I said it could have been a worthy competitor to JS/node especially in the past when JS was shit and even now where npm is filled with leftPads and colorRed packages.

They're pushing hard in that direction with https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/apps/aspnet/web-apps/blaz...

I don't think we've heard the last word yet.

JS/node are no competitors to .NET, not even close, only in the minds of script kiddies.

I only done desktop .Net apps so I can't judge, but even if I love the language and the standard library in .Net I would never had considered using it on a server if I had a choice, not because of quality but because of Microsoft bad treatment of the licenses an, the FUD and how they handled it. They managed to drag this platform down that js and node has probably more users and mind-share, they even had to "port "C#" and create TypeScript.

Btw, i did not implied anything about node or npm quality, someone that worked with both seriously in recent years might add their thoughts (so I am not a node fan just a C# lower disappointed on MS behavior).

Kotlin wasn't created to sell intelliJ, it had been the dominance IDE long before Kotlin inception. You found an article that happens to have that wording, that fits you hatred for some programming language. So you parroted the same argument all over this thread. Get a life.

C# was created in response to Java to keep developers in the Microsoft ecosystem.

Its effectivly the same thing, even though Microsofts goal wasn't selling visual studio, because they've got a much more lucrative cash cow: an operating system

Wrong.

.NET was going to use Java, when it was still codenamed as Ext-VOS.

It was the lawsuit against J++ that made C# a reality.

You didn't contradict my statement with that...

The motivation behind c# was keeping people in the Microsoft ecosystem. Wherever they attempted to use a rebranded jvm before that is entirely besides the point

Exactly. They ignored the Microsoft JVM, J++, J#, and the lawsuit around it that forced them to make C# and compete - rather than extinguish

Reply on news.ycombinator.com