On Tue, January 10, 2012 17:15, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: >> >> One *could* argue that Java is a bug, being a) so error-prone, b) so >> vulnerable to attack, and c) so huge and slow, and shouldn't be >> allowed.... > > But you'd be wrong on all counts. I'd argue the opposite - that you > should only be allowed to use languages that work across CPU types and > OS's so as to never be locked into a monopolistic single vendor. > So if I were to develop a CPU type and/or OS that didn't support Java then you would lock yourself out of the very language you appear to advocate?