Success Has Battle Scars

This observation is based on a discussion in which older "web" languages have more features and support, but also ugly warts, scars, and weather marks left over from starting out in humbler circumstances and being pulled through the maturing process.

It's rare that BigDesignUpFront is done and the product is ready for wide and heavy use on the first release. Most successful products and standards have grown from simpler usage and will have scars and stretchmarks from the growth and changes on the way to being successful (widely used).

'BigDesignUpFront' and 'success' are incompatible features for a web language. See WebObjects vs how successful the equivalent desktop/mobile API has been.

WebObjects has yet to be road-tested on multiple platforms.

{So the fact that it's Java-based and therefore runs on Windows, Linux, OSX, etc., isn't "multiple platforms" enough?}

For now I withdraw that criticism. However, I don't see it in heavy use so far, based on Googling and Dice.com-ing around. Its usage level does not seem to qualify for "successful" in the way that C, Php, SQL, or HTML has, or even Java itself. It has a relatively small cult following.

{Nobody claimed otherwise.}

The criteria "widely used" was given above, I would note. In my assessment, WebObjects does not qualify.

{Nobody claimed WebObjects was widely used. Indeed, that was the point.}

I think I misunderstood your opening sentence. However, I'm not sure what the correct interpretation still is.

CategoryExperience?, CategoryHistory