On 2 June 2010 02:40, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote:
> Learning java closure syntax is more complicated than learning scala? > You've got to be kidding me. I'm assuming that this is the sentence that prompted your outrage: "Scala is, frankly, the lowest impact change for java developers willing to move to a better integrated functional syntax (at the cost of legacy functionality)" The key phrase was "better integrated", it was a comparative, but to what? To Java's proposed syntax of course! So I was talking about the lowest impact of the alternatives to Java. Presumably you don't consider Java to be an alternative to itself? To avoid any further confusion, I'll rephrase it: Having a functional syntax that is closely integrated into a language (ideally from the point of conception) is a desirable thing. Unfortunately, this deep integration is not possible with Java due to backward-compatibility constraints. For Java developers wanting a syntax that is more natural and effortless than this proposal, it would therefore seem wise to look beyond Java-the-Language. In this broader space of alternate JVM languages the barrier to entry seems lowest for Scala, thanks to static typing and conscious efforts at making Java-Scala interop effortless. Scala can be initially used as though it were no more than a tidied-up variant of Java, allowing developers to become productive again in a very short space of time. On Jun 1, 2:41 pm, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > Quite the opposite, I want to promote java-the-platform vs .net, ruby, > etc. > > > > Java is a great language if you want compatibility all the way back to > 1.0 > > code, but in terms of having contemporary features and being fun to use > it's > > already lost a great deal of mindshare. > > > > Scala is, frankly, the lowest impact change for java developers willing > to > > move to a better integrated functional syntax (at the cost of legacy > > functionality) > > > > I *could* promote Java by defending an outdated legacy syntax that must > be > > kept for reasons of backward-compatibility. I could also promote Star > Trek > > by shouting down anyone who says that Kirk's character is over-acted. > But > > to me, the true essence of Star Trek is perhaps better captured with > Patrick > > Stewart at the helm... > > > > And so it is with Java vs Scala, we may mourn the loss of mini-skirts > from > > time to time (who doesn't?). Nevertheless, the end product is arguably > > better, and you have to admit that holo-decks are pretty cool - there are > > many stories that just wouldn't have been written without them (a bit > like > > built-in FP then). > > > > So did Star Trek NG denigrate the original series? I'd like to think not > - > > it's full of nostalgia for me. I'd also like to think that Scala isn't > > denigrating Java, it's just the future of the same universe. > > > > As for Scala mailing lists? Yes, I'm a frequent contributor there, where > > they boldly go to some amazing new places at times. The best part is > that > > we manage to do so without the dilithium crystals failing every third > > episode, and I'm finding that I really don't miss it as a plot element > all > > that much. > > > > On 1 Jun 2010 12:32, "Reinier Zwitserloot" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Oh, yeah, we'll just move every single existing java programmer over. > > Easy peasy. > > > > I get really annoyed at people who have this 'oh, give up java > > already' vibe. If you don't care, that's fine. Why don't you go and be > > positive on the scala mailing list, instead of being negative here? > > Some of us are trying to make java a better language. If you'd rather > > torch java's future to increase scala adoption, I don't want to talk > > to you. The more languages the merrier, let them win on their merits, > > not by the demerits of other languages. Also, it's all on the JVM. > > When one JVM language gains strength, that solidifies the JVM as a > > platform, which is good for all JVM languages. I want a strong Scala > > *AND* a strong Java. > > > > On Jun 1, 10:56 am, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Syntax wise, we can be a lot s... > > > On 1 June 2010 09:35, Moandji Ezana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Michael Neale < > [email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > >> I think it shows it in its worst light, when others show examples it > > > >> is OK I guess... > > > > ... > > > > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > <javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups .com> > > > > <javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups .com> > > > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > >... > > > mail/google talk: [email protected] > > > wave: [email protected] > > > skype: kev.lee.wright > > > twitter: @thecoda > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group... > > -- > 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]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail/google talk: [email protected] wave: [email protected] skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- 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.
