>>114
You aren't me.
>>110
Yes, no, no, no, no, yes, and no.
There are times were the benefits of OOP are clear. Java forces everything to be "OOP," even those things that OOP makes much more cumbersome. If you've ever written non-trivial software with extreme zeal for OOP, you'd find the difficulty in, for example, hunting down precisely what the problem is in a multi-threaded application that's increasing AES encryption when it should not be. So in order to be scalable, you can't even do it pure OOP (which the language tries to force on you).
It's not easy to use. The syntax is often pig disgusting, but that's a personal preference that has no bearing on its ease of use (except to me). Still, good luck hunting down exactly what you need given the extreme OOP segmentation of that standard library. Not to mention having to learn the syntax for everything when you finally hunt that shit down.
It's not easy to learn, in the sense that you'll still make totally shit applications if you just dive into it without memory optimization. Most nontrivial tasks eat up tons of memory with Java. The fact that it abstracts the memory away makes it more "newb-friendly," but it shouldn't be considered for any serious application without great expertise in Java. And why would you even want to be a Java expert with all its other issues?
Large API is a benefit.. how? I think, by the way, you mean "excessive API." One man's trash is another man's gold mine, and apparently you think this trash is a gold mine. There's a good reason that Java is described as bloated.
Customizable? I laugh. It's about as customizable as a haxed anus.