> Why did google bother to introduce a new language that still relies on the java VM?
Kotlin was not created by Google, but JetBrains. Also there are many other JVM languages (e.g. Scala). People write new languages for many reasons, and that's probably why we are not stuck with assembly (or even binary?).
> Why didn't they just rewrite their standard libraries in C++, and build kotlin on top of that?
Not sure I understand that. You mean that the Android SDK should be using C++ at the core, and expose a Kotlin API? The user would not see a difference, and I would guess that some parts at the lower level are written in C/C++ (or even Rust nowadays).
> Do google even care about android or is it such an absurdly low revenue division that they try to spend as little as possible on it?
What would you suggest as a better design? It seems to me that you just don't like the JVM (maybe because you read somewhere that the JVM is bad and accepted it like this?) and just complain about it. Or do you have real criticism about the JVM? And since you seem to be targeting Android, do you know that Android is not actually running the JVM?
I assumed google designed kotlin, my mistake I do not care about android. The decision however is even stupider given that is not the case. I was suggesting they could rewrite their libraries in a language that compiles directly to machine code (like C++) and design a language on top with a simple to use and memorizable syntax like swift which would transpile to C++ giving you no overhead. That is my proposal for a far better design that would have a substantial impact to developers, users, and OEM's.
Ignoring your snide remarks. Yes using dalvik (the same nonsense as JVM) is a stupid idea for a company that can afford to make development more efficient and performant. Why is there an intermediary layer introducing overhead when it doesn't improve the developer or user experience? If you don't think the user would notice you're myopic. Being able to use cheaper hardware to provide faster devices is a direct benefit to consumers. And perhaps you're too young or inexperienced but Android was designed to use Java for the ease of transitioning existing mobile phone developers to smartphones.
The patchwork of changes they have made between now and then do not provide anywhere near the benefits of what I suggested. It would behoove you to actually understand the overhead of interpreting bytecode before suggesting it offers no impact to compile directly to machine code. Perhaps you're blindly loyal to android because you've been in the environment too long. As someone who has done both android and iOS (primarily the latter) development the experience across the board is unparalled for developers and users.
Just accept android is trash and google don't care or are mismanaged by morons too disincentivized to fix it because of google's crabs in a bucket culture.
> I assumed google designed kotlin, my mistake I do not care about android.
That's exactly what I criticize: you assume stuff that is wrong, and then you say "it's stupid".
> with a simple to use and memorizable syntax like swift
Have you ever tried Kotlin, or do you assume it is bad?
> Yes using dalvik (the same nonsense as JVM) is a stupid idea
Too bad, it stopped being Dalvik years ago. But I guess you just assumed without checking anything, again.
> Being able to use cheaper hardware to provide faster devices is a direct benefit to consumers.
Sure. Feel free to design cheaper hardware and provide faster devices. If you take the Android market, you'll be rich.
> And perhaps you're too young or inexperienced
Just experienced enough to not "assume" wrong stuff and feel like I know best.
> The patchwork of changes they have made between now and then
Says the person who doesn't know that they have changed Dalvik.
> It would behoove you to actually understand the overhead of interpreting bytecode
Assuming again? Ever heard of AOT?
> Perhaps you're blindly loyal to android
Absolutely not. Android has its issues, so does iOS. I just do my best not to say stuff like "it's a piece of trash because <wrong fact> <wrong fact>".
Kotlin was not created by Google, but JetBrains. Also there are many other JVM languages (e.g. Scala). People write new languages for many reasons, and that's probably why we are not stuck with assembly (or even binary?).
> Why didn't they just rewrite their standard libraries in C++, and build kotlin on top of that?
Not sure I understand that. You mean that the Android SDK should be using C++ at the core, and expose a Kotlin API? The user would not see a difference, and I would guess that some parts at the lower level are written in C/C++ (or even Rust nowadays).
> Do google even care about android or is it such an absurdly low revenue division that they try to spend as little as possible on it?
What would you suggest as a better design? It seems to me that you just don't like the JVM (maybe because you read somewhere that the JVM is bad and accepted it like this?) and just complain about it. Or do you have real criticism about the JVM? And since you seem to be targeting Android, do you know that Android is not actually running the JVM?