I think the lesson to learn from Java was that we, developers, were evaluating languages on the wrong parameters.
Java is too verbose! (But that can reduce the need for so many comments, and comments can often mislead as software changes. Also, Java 8 was 2014 and it changed the game massively.)
Java runs slowly because of the JVM! (But the JVM evolves and improves, giving free upgrades to all Java programs over time. Also, I have a multi-GHZ processor now.)
Java takes longer to write! (But the first time you write a program is never the hard part- it's continuous evolution of software that matters.)
Norvig's code is beautiful and very good Lisp. But it's so dense that it requires more lines of explanatory comments than actual functionality. The code's functionality isn't self-evident. And sure, you can write Java code that has the same flaws, but I find it's easier to write readable Java code than it is to write readable Lisp.
I think Python's success is further evidence of this perspective.
Java is too verbose! (But that can reduce the need for so many comments, and comments can often mislead as software changes. Also, Java 8 was 2014 and it changed the game massively.)
Java runs slowly because of the JVM! (But the JVM evolves and improves, giving free upgrades to all Java programs over time. Also, I have a multi-GHZ processor now.)
Java takes longer to write! (But the first time you write a program is never the hard part- it's continuous evolution of software that matters.)
Norvig's code is beautiful and very good Lisp. But it's so dense that it requires more lines of explanatory comments than actual functionality. The code's functionality isn't self-evident. And sure, you can write Java code that has the same flaws, but I find it's easier to write readable Java code than it is to write readable Lisp.
I think Python's success is further evidence of this perspective.