Java programmers need to understand JVM tuning, and here it is given a whole chapter

which is a poor choice of words from the reviewer.

Programmers don't need to understand JVM tuning. Administrators do. A lot of the time 1 person will perform both roles, but they are still different roles.

Of course, I'm not sure how that poor choice of words on the reviewers behalf justifies Lunix Nutcase's rants.

Nothing (*) in the Java Language Environment (which is what the linked document covers) requires the programmer to do explicit memory management.
Optimally tuning your system requires additional knowledge beyond the language environment. That's true in every system.

CGI removed the need for developers to understand the implementation details of HTTP and TCP/IP, but if you want to tune your web-server, then you're going to need to understand those.
"Everything is a file" is all well and good for a C/Unix developer, but the system administrator needs to know the difference between the kernel parameters for TCP/IP and for Disk I/O.
SQL developers care about tables and indexes and queries and don't need to worry about physical storage or the number of execution engines, or the size of the procedure cache, but DBAs need to care about all those things.

If you somehow believed that because "Java technology completely removes the memory management load from the programmer", then no one was ever going to need to think about how much memory was used by a system built in Java, and somehow system administrators could run large Java applications without even thinking about how to tune them, then I don't know what I can say to help you.

Yes, for good or bad, Java removes memory management load from programmers - but it does not remove it from administrators, and I'm not aware of any documentation that claimed it would.

(*) Direct memory buffers (which were added long after that document was written), allow the programmer to do some memory management if so desired, but they are still not required

On 2010-12-05 VMWare voted Yes with no comment.

If they're not happy, then too bad. They made their own bed.

The "immaculate conception" refers to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary, and has nothing to do with virgin births.

The fact that you didn't know about that is probably a validation of the complaints about the UI.

Disclaimer: I don't have any vested interests in Atlassian, but one of the founders is a friend-of-a-friend

• Hiring freelancers through DeviantArt is cheaper than going out to a "professional" artist and gets better results
• Ask them to set their own price for the work you 're requesting
• Pay a fixed price, rather than a % of sales.
• Pay on completion of the work, not upfront.
• Once the deal's done, and you've paid them the agreed price, it's none of their business how much you are/aren't making from the game.

I think the way he expressed himself leaves a lot to be desired, and it's might well be the case that he's out to screw people. But the actual process he recommends seems to be fairly standard for freelance artwork.

There are plenty of movies that are worth renting on DVD for a few dollars, that are absolutely not worth watching a second time (because you know the ending). Do they automatically suck?

Every game has some limits to how many times you want to replay it. For some games that's high. For others it's lower. That doesn't mean every game sucks.
WoG provided you with 3 hours of entertainment. Is that worth $20? Perhaps not. Is it worth $3? I would assume so. (Surely you value entertainment at at least $1 per hour)

Oh, and the other part of your thesis is also false - WoG has an OCD goal, where you try and complete each level within a set of defined limits (like number of moves, % saved, etc). I very much doubt anyone has hit all the OCD goals in 3 hours of playing. If you aren't interested in doing that, then that's your choice, but there certainly is replay value for people who enjoyed the game.