Re: Solving problems which don't exist anymore
Your post is, excepting that JAVA's cross-compatibility is a factor in its success, start to end nonsense.
I'll just do the highlights and that alone will take me ten minutes.
>>However today we have POSIX.
POSIX has been around since the late nineties. In fact, the main parts of it were around in the Eighties! First public release of Java was around the same time as the formalization of POSIX. POSIX has been available throughout all the time that Java was establishing itself.
But that's a minor detail in comparison to your suggestion that POSIX obviates the need for Java. POSIX is limited standard focused solely around the UNIX model and very limited in scope. It's never even been revised to deal with Object Orientation which it just pretends doesn't exist. It would be quicker to list the things it does cover than all the things it doesn't. The most modern thing it attempts is a well-intentioned [b]attempt[/b] at ACLs. Which are ignored by most GNU/Linux distributions. And that's another thing. Aside from only being good for writing programs that move a few files around, it's not even fully implemented on all major GNU/Linux distributions! Heck, [b]systemd[/b] isn't even POSIX-compliant and that's everywhere! And I haven't even started on Windows yet! If, and let me emphasize the IF, you install Cygwin on Windows you get the limited capabilities of POSIX on Windows (at a snail's pace and unable to use most of the Windows OS). POSIX is just a set of UNIX standards not even fully adhered to in the GNU/Linux world and you are offering it up as a cross-platform alternative to Java? They're not even the same type of thing. Tell me how I compile a C++ program on GNU/Linux and run it on Windows 7 using "POSIX". Your argument doesn't make any sense.
>>You no longer need to port software you can just re-compile it. So it's trivial to just publish your software in source code.
Well that's just great. Because 99% of the computer users you want to run your program are just great at downloading a C++ compiler appropriate for their platform and then assembling it into executable code and setting that executable up as installed along with any library dependencies, resolving version issues, etc. And you're aware that Security is a thing these days? That with the JVM you can actually handle permissions in a sensible way. Exactly how safe do you think sending people source code to compile would be?
>>Java, like C++ and similar languages seem to make it easy to write complex software
ROFL! No-one has ever, ever sat in front of a C++ compiler and thought, "Oh! Writing complex software is easy now!" Not for more than two minutes, anyway. And I speak as a former C++ programmer who regards the language as very impressive. I mean, Visual Basic might fool (until they get into the second week and realise they've just created a huge unworking mess), but C++? No. And the same for Java.
>>Now most problems in IT are very trivial
Please, you're hurting me.
>>the core of the operation of most companies could just as well be managed by punchcard collators or very simple computer programs, often not even needing an SQL database
I would love to know what you do for a living. Have you ever even seen the inside of an office?
>>"However since it seems so easy to write complex software people don't bother having a nice and simple design first. The result often are brittle and inflexible systems."
Sometimes someone's post is wrong simply in the odd factual detail. Sometimes someone's post is biased and slants facts or omits inconvenient ones. But your post is so lacking in familiarity with the subject matter it is beyond correction, it should just be dismissed wholesale as meaningless.