Accurracy of technical arguments in JWZ's 1997 "java sucks" article with today's Java?
<p>I'm currently using Java in a larger project and was curious which of the technical arguments in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jwz">JWZ</a>'s famous <a href="http://www.jwz.org/doc/java.html">"java sucks" article</a> were still valid ten years later. The article starts like this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I think Java is the best language going today, which is to say, it's the marginally acceptable one among the set of complete bagbiting loser languages that we have to work with out here in the real world. Java is far, far more pleasant to work with than C or C++ or Perl or Tcl/Tk or even Emacs-Lisp. When I first started using Java, it felt like an old friend: like finally I was back using a real object system, before the blights of C (the PDP-11 assembler that thinks it's a language) and C++ (the PDP-11 assembler that thinks it's an object system) took over the world.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It's less polemic than its title suggests, and continues to list some technical aspects that he doesn't like about the language. It seems to me that some of these are outdated, and the original article has received so much attention over time, that I thought it would be nice to know what they were.</p>

<p>For instance, given the popularity of scripting languages and recent technologies like .Net, it seems pretty much consensual that the performance overhead for interpreting code at runtime can be addressed well with JIT compilers (as in Java or .Net) or doesn't matter that much (as in PHP or Python). Also, not many people seem to hate garbage collection, so are there still any other reasons to dislike the JVM?</p>
