"And yes, Java (and Windows) was designed to use low-skilled labor."
This is an assertion I've seen repeated many times, but never with anything to back it up. Do have any evidence for this, or is it just a feeling that you have? Based on what I've read, Java was designed for use in embedded systems like set top boxes, and the authors wanted to design away some common developer errors. An evolutionary biologist might say that Java was "pre-adapted" for use by low-skilled labor, but I don't think there is any indication that it was designed for it.
the authors wanted to design away some common developer errors, which average developer cannot overcome.
There is no rocket science in memory management and pointer manipulation, but, from commercial (manager's) point of view, those difficult to find and debug memory issues is the common cause of troubles with schedule and budget, because good programmers are rare, expensive and difficult to deal with, while average code monkeys are cheap in the first place, and easy to hire and replace.
That's why Java is the de-facto standard for corporate in-house development (read - coding fabrics) and no one in that world even considers that stuff like the ability (in theory) to run the same code on a different platform, especially while it is impossible in so-called objective reality. (Just try to run some bloated, poorly designed spring-hibernate-with-dependences project on a platform other than x86).
And finally, consider RoR - same approach, same and big success.
This is an assertion I've seen repeated many times, but never with anything to back it up. Do have any evidence for this, or is it just a feeling that you have? Based on what I've read, Java was designed for use in embedded systems like set top boxes, and the authors wanted to design away some common developer errors. An evolutionary biologist might say that Java was "pre-adapted" for use by low-skilled labor, but I don't think there is any indication that it was designed for it.