Hi John, Zwitserloot is not saying anything meaningful. He may be trying to say something about the different properties between scala.List and java.util.List. For example scala.List is always evaluated in-memory, is immutable and has constant time insert, while java.util.List says nothing about this (and is relatively subverted). Java does indeed have a List that is directly compatible (isomorphic) to scala.List in a third party library - the class name is fj.data.List. Nevertheless, this failed attempt at a valid point is like saying that java.util.List is incompatible with java.lang.String. Of course, there is no point to made here (since, so what?).
Otherwise, as you show, there is no incompatibility. So you may request Zwitserloot to clarify his claim with evidence or meaning, but be warned... Requiring Zwitserloot to say anything meaningful will be met with haste as it exposes his fraudulent manner. I would normally advise you to at least be very sceptical of - and typically ignore - what Zwitserloot has to say (since it almost always outright wrong or meaningless), however, as you have seen, I have not heeded my own advice in this case. I assure you that I normally do ignore Zwitserloot as one of the few internet personalities who loudly and proudly announce their dishonesty and ineptitude simultaneously and that my previous comments are merely an act of perverted indulgence. I will go back to my usual hidey hole (I normally do not pursue fraudsters on the internet, truly! :)), but if you have misunderstandings or questions, please be assured that users of Scala are typically very helpful to newcomers and their questions and I invite you to contact me privately with your queries should you have any. On Dec 25, 4:35 am, James Iry <[email protected]> wrote: > Oops, my sock puppet was busted. :-) > > On Dec 24, 10:31 am, James Iry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah if scala.List is differnt from java.util.List means that Scala is > > incompatible with Java then Java is incompatible with itself because > > it has java.util.List and java.awt.List also it has java.util.Date and > > java.sql.Date. And a bunch of others. Hahaha. > > > Thanks for the tip about conversions. I guess it would be nice if > > Scala could do that conversion without the import but the import is no > > big deal. > > > Java was my first language and then I learned Ruby. I really liked > > Ruby but I missed strong typing. I read something by David Pollock > > that said that Scala was like a strong typed ruby so I started > > learning it. It's really easy so far. It's a lot like Java but > > closures are like Ruby blocks and I don't write so many types. > > > Renier says that enterprise developers can't handle Scala because the > > syntax is different from Java or C. He must think we're very stupid. > > I'm going to do like you are and ignore him. I don't like being > > called stupid. > > > On Dec 24, 9:33 am, James Iry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi John, > > > > Thanks for investigating rather than taking such claims on face > > > value. Indeed, the Scala language is compatible with Java's List > > > hierarchy. As you point out, scala.List is just another class which > > > you can use or not use. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
