No Rob, we disagreed many times. Disagreeing is fun and enlightening. The ban came when you stopped disagreeing and acted childish because you were upset that I was challenging your deeply held beliefs (since that is what it is James - not a "presentation issue" - sigh). The ban was removed 3 minutes later despite your circumvention. You're welcome back, but please maintain a level manner of discourse, even in the face of strong disagreement. It's simply not constructive for any party (you, I or channel members) when you perform the way you did. I hope things work out.
Reflect a little: Dec 28 09:01:40 <OutlawRob> dibblego: Your limited functional view of the world reduces things to algorithms. People don't want algorithms they want vi, and grep and sed and scalac and amazon.com. ... Dec 28 09:01:57 <dibblego> OutlawRob, they are all algorithms - your limited view on the world prevents you from observing this fact ... Dec 28 09:03:38 <OutlawRob> dibblego: The whole universe is an algorithm if you twist your head and look at it in the right way with a little squint of your left eye. But for someone trying to get to the shops to buy milk .. that isn't useful. Dec 28 09:04:05 <dibblego> OutlawRob, actually that's untrue, but I seriously doubt we'll ever get that far in discussion - you're too wrong too early on Dec 28 09:04:10 <OutlawRob> dibblego: You should have created a better syntax and done it with a single character. ... Dec 28 09:04:52 <OutlawRob> dibblego: You're right. I'll tell my grandmother to turn in her bus pass and buy some logic books. That's a much better way to make her coffee white. ... Dec 28 09:05:07 <dibblego> OutlawRob, please quit with the logical fallacies - it makes me cringe in embarassment Dec 28 09:05:58 <OutlawRob> dibblego: Please quit with the patronising trolling and come back when you consider thousands and thousands of lines to be anything other than a few days work. Dec 28 09:06:16 <dibblego> haha! Dec 28 09:06:48 <OutlawRob> dibblego: I imagine you're still trying to make your computer work without the horrible side effects of a screen. Dec 28 09:06:55 * ChanServ gives channel operator status to dibblego Dec 28 09:06:59 * dibblego sets ban on *!*n=r...@*.plus.com Dec 28 09:07:05 * dibblego removes channel operator status from dibblego Dec 28 09:07:07 <dibblego> cool off On Dec 28, 3:38 pm, James Iry <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 27, 6:11 pm, "Robert Lally" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Tony has operator privileges on #scala, > > That's because, AFAIK, he started that channel. > > > With this, he is a significant and > > influential member of the Scala community and sets the tone for much of the > > IRC conversation. Feel free to insert your own favourite saying regarding > > limited numbers of apples of dubious quality and their effects on barrels > > containing larger numbers of similar, but more wholesome, fruit. > > > Perhaps, James, your energies would be spent better on chastisement than > > apology. > > Believe me, I've tried and so have many others. We've tried > educating, pleading, belittling, you name it. He literally either > doesn't understand the issue or doesn't care. The challenge with Tony > is that he's usually right about matters of fact, but usually oh so > wrong in his manner of presenting it. So instead of fixing the > unfixable, the rest of us try to go around presenting a more reasoned, > less combative approach. > > > The thing that makes me most > > uncomfortable is, that I've been looking at Scala over the last couple of > > years and I still find that I can't skim across code the way I can in other > > languages. Perhaps a daily immersion in the language is required, perhaps > > I'm just not up to the job. > > Scala is definitely not a language that one can skim after merely > looking at it for awhile. Scala is something you need to get your > hands dirty with. But I find the same true of the more interesting > bits of Ruby and Python and Haskell and Scheme. And can you really > skim sophisticated usage of Java generics, or deeply nested inner > classes, or crazy patterns of break/continue? > > Having said that, I guess I had an advantage when I learned Scala. I > had already learned Scheme and Haskell when I moved to Scala so many > of its constructs (e.g. lambdas and pattern matching) seemed pretty > ordinary. I recognize that many Java programmers don't have > experience like that, but I think the Programming in Scala book goes a > very long way towards bridging that gap. > > As for readability, I posted on my blog once a fairly indecipherable > implementation of factorial in Java using a Y combinator. Now, > obviously nobody would consider that ordinary Java, but it does > illustrate a point: it's not so much a language that's readable or > unreadable as what's written in it. Much of the hard to read Scala > code you've seen may be expressing functional "design patterns" (e.g. > monads) that you just haven't seen before in Java or at least haven't > learned as design pattern. > > On the flip side of the readability coin, Scala expresses many design > patterns in a much more straight forward fashion than Java - Visitor > maps to pattern matching, Strategy often maps to first class > functions, Singleton is built into the language, etc. In a sense, > these things cease to be "patterns" and just start to be ordinary, > every day constructs. It's like if I said to you "today I > implemented a record of function references" or "today I implemented a > dynamically dispatching to a function based on on the runtime type of > the first argument." What I've just described is the essence of Java > style single dispatch object orientation, but it sounds like something > peculiar and complicated when spelled out that way. > > > Having said all that, I do hope that Scala has a future in the enterprise: > > enterprise programmers are being asked to solve harder and harder problems, > > in less time, and with fewer resources for maintenance, a more powerful > > language could make a difference here. And complexity isn't necessarily a > > barrier: Stroustrup's The C++ Programming Language is 1030 pages as opposed > > to Programming in Scala's 736 .. and there's no shortage of C++ programmers > > (although perhaps that's not a good point to make since the argument FOR > > Java was that it was better than C++ due to its simplicity). > > I was a professional C++ programmer for years and there are still > corners of the language I never fully grokked. But you have to do > some pretty sophisticated type level hackery to get me to scratch my > head with Scala. Once you get past wrestling with the unfamiliar, > Scala isn't such a complicated language. At the term level it's > actually roughly the same complexity as Java but its substantially > more regular, and at the type level it's only a bit more complex. On > the other hand, C++ is a far, far more complicated beast. Don't even > get me started about rules for copy constructors, the use of virtual > destructors, the precedence for type coercions, how operator > overloading is resolved, etc. Anybody who says that Scala approaches C > ++ levels of complexity really hasn't used both languages. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
