"my sense is that Java is still the undisputed easy-to-grok, easy-to-write, easy-to-read, and easy-to-maintain language among them all"

Here's the problem. That's *your* sense. Okay. Good for you. The people embracing other languages would disagree that Java language code is *any* of those things. I happen to be one of them. I see Java language code and I usually want to throw up in my own mouth. My revulsion to the language is so strong that for many years I simply stayed with C++ (or occasionally OCaml or when on Windows C# - to *me* either of these is more preferable). It wasn't until the "low ceremony" languages started to crop up that I began looking at "Java" again. Coming from this angle, there's no value at all in the language. Its the readily available APIs that provide value.

Now to be fair, I don't give a rat's behind about which VM those APIs target (which supports what I guess is one of your points). As was noted, Scala (at least used to) also target the .Net VM. I'd still use it if it targeted the Qt APIs. What matters is that I get a language that is, to me (and I would guess other Groovy,JRuby,Scala,etc adopters), more all of the things quoted above than Java language is and that I get a reasonably complete platform on which to build.

The point, Weiqi, is that what you state as imperative fact is subjective, dependent on your point of view and your preference and where your coming from. That doesn't change because there are "6 millions" of you or just one of me (never mind that a great many people "spent money" to learn Java not because of some attraction to The Great Language, but because the *platform* was chosen from on high for the job at hand - and because at one time it was the only flavor available on the platform).

The other VM communities (.Net, Parrot, Mono, etc) all recognize that API (aka, the platform) is where the value is. To this end they *all* support multiple languages, allowing people with different language preferences to share in the common base.

I would postulate that, were there no other JVM projects out there, the Java community would be in a serious state of decline by now. We'll never know whether that's right or not because, thankfully, there are enough people out there who see value in the platform independent of the language to provide a healthy number of alternatives.

There's nothing drama queen or hyperbole about it. What is common practice in Java happens to come across as exceptionally bad taste to me and as a result I go to great lengths to avoid touching the language, as stated.

Clearly I'm in the minority here, but I stand by my assertion that the value of Java is in the platform and not the language. I need only point not only to the other JVM languages out there but also to .Net, Mono, etc projects to support my claim that on any platform its the API that matters.

Maybe, but that's one hell of a catchup to do.

Sure, things like LLVM will hopefully help but you have to keep in mind that the Sun JVM ("Hotspot") has its roots in Smalltalk and Self. Both of them are extremely dynamic languages that require aggressive optimization techniques for good performance. AFAIK, a lot of that infrastructure is still there although you're not able to leverage that with the Java bytecode instruction set.

And lets not forget the achilles heel of any VM, the garbage collector. The Hotspot GC has gotten tons of real world performance testing and optimizations over the years. Last time I checked, most of the Open Source competitors (Mono, Ruby, etc.) were severely lacking in this area. Furthermore, if you look at projects like Parrot, you can see that it's not just the "JVM crazies" that see the benefit of using a single VM implementation for multiple languages.

I'm not saying the JVM should be the center of the universe but I do see the potential in fixing the limitations of the instruction set to support dynamic languages better. A ex-colleague of mine once said something along the lines of "the JVM is the new UNIX kernel" and I think there's some truth to it. And I think it's a real possibility people will accept the JVM just like they accepted the UNIX system call interface in the past. No, it's not perfect but it works and it has big enough installation base to make it extremely difficult for newcomers to get enough traction.

And I think that might have something to do with why Microsoft spent so much time and energy creating CLR which is more or less a incompatible clone of the JVM. The similarities to what they did with Windows NT when they were getting beaten up by the UNIX vendors in the late 1980s seem kinda obvious.