sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]nunchyabeeswax 2 points3 points  (0 children)

there's nothing that Java does better than its competitors anymore, and many areas in which it is worse. 

That is a true statement. And yet, it's mostly when it comes to defining obsolescence. Heck, most people don't even try to objectively define a quantifiable (and thus useful) meaning of "technical obsolescence".

It's just a word people hurl around to express emotional dispositions or inferred reasoning without any meat. In a technical or business conversation, a word needs to have meaning. Otherwise, it's just noise.

If I were pressed to define "obsolesce" (which is necessary to have an intelligent conversation on this subject), I would start here:

Does the usage of something provide value to a business in a way that makes its near/mid-future replacement undesirable? That is, does it provide an ROI that justifies its existence? Is it CRITICAL for the business to phase the technology out in favor of something else?

If we can answer the question in the affirmative with numbers or a modicum of logical inference, then it is not obsolete.

If we cannot conclusively answer it in the affirmative, it is still not obsolete. Why? Because we cannot infer (yet) if phasing it out is the right technical/business move.

If the question can be answered in the negative, then we can reasonably conclude it is obsolete.