On Sunday, 7 December 2014 at 13:39:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 09:07:34 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
Solved in Scala:
- operator overloading
- properties - that + optional (), a library writer still can
enforce () to be used
- only and exactly one class - any number in any combination
- everything class - sort of, it has 'object' clause (just
like 'class') that can be thought as a kind of namespace or a
singleton if you love OOP.
Not fixed:
- unsigend types - nothing here unless Java adds support
- pasing by value - there are immutable and value types (e.g.
Tuples) but I think they are references behind the scenes
- no templates, but you may use AST macros which is even more
powerful
Scala tries to make things nicer by providing higher level
abstractions but with tiny bit more poking JVM origins still
are unpleasantly notable. The whole Function1 .. Function22
trait thing has made me laugh very hard when reading the spec
originally :)
.NET is no different
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd402872%28v=vs.110%29.aspx
This is what happens when generics don't support variable number
of types.
--
Paulo
