On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Michael Dürig<[email protected]> wrote:
I'd rather go for a modern language instead of taping things together ;-)
Michael is certainly thinking of Scala which has its own can of issues ...
Syntax not being the least of it ;)
While syntax is to a certain degree a matter of taste (like int foo vs.
foo: int), Scala's syntax is at least much more consistent, clean, and
concise than Java's. However, most of Scala's (or any other more
functional oriented language) real value is not its syntax. Its about
having a better suited tool for concurrency (immutability) and big data
(lazy evaluation, higher order functions).
Indeed, that's another point I've been thinking about....
I am not really sure, whether we should really open this can of worms ...
We should be *very* careful here: while "opening this can of worms"
might confront us with a lot of challenges, it also opens up a lot of
chances. Foremost, having to use a new language is a big effort for
everyone involved. But it can also be an eye opener and a real booster
in the long run.
OTOH, sticking with Java might leave us lagging behind, entrapped in
never ending concurrency night mares and memory contention issues.
Michael
I for my part I would expect JR 3 to still be easily embedded in a JVM
(deployed in an OSGi framework running in a JVM, actually), which pretty much
excludes anything not being compiled to Java Byte Code executable by the JVM.
Regards
Felix
