I think Scala is fair game here, as is any language that runs on the JVM. Java is the platform as well as the language, so we're in the right posse :)
Unlike certain other explicitly anti-Java languages/platforms that have recently seen a surge of debate here... FWIW, my honest beliefs: - Static typing has definite benefits, but verbose implementations (*cough* like Java's) have given it a bad name - Scala is both easier and harder than Java. Almost all Scala code is smaller and more comprehensible than equivalent Java. Though the fiddly bits are more fiddly (but you're talking advanced DSL implementations, or highly-reusable libraries, or such-like to get to that level of complexity) - Being familiar with Scala for over 2 years now, it most definitely feels more productive and intuitive than Java to me and I'm wary of those who would judge the language without using it for more than a handful of lines - Many of the features seen as complex in Scala compare to equivalent features in Java that *appear* simpler because they are typically done wrong (such as variance in collections and mutability of hash keys) - There are definitely features (like Higher-kinded types) that are pretty complex but they can also offer incredible elegance and functionality and it isn't fair to say Scala feature X is more complicated than Java feature X when Java doesn't even *have* feature X - Tooling does *not* compensate for boilerplate - C++ is also too Verbose Yes, Scala has issues. - It may be less necessary, but Scala IDE support still needs to improve if the language is to gain wider acceptance - binary backward compatibility is still an issue, though one that is thankfully being worked on On 2 August 2010 01:52, Wildam Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:40, Blanford <[email protected]> wrote: > > There seems to be a Scala movement gaining steam on this site. > > Too much for my favor... > > > > I hate to break it to you all, but Scala will be going absolutely > > nowhere!! > > ...but this is maybe to harsh. > > > > There are many reasons for this: > > 1. Scala solves no practical business problem. > > There already have been threads about the practical use of Scala and > my impression is, that there are use cases. > > > > 2. Scala is not easier than the alternatives. > > Indeed, I think it is not easier to learn and either more complicated > to read than Java IMHO. > > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:11, Mario Fusco <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 1. Scala solves no practical business problem. > > If this is the only reason to look for a different language I think we > > will develop only in Java till the retirement. > > What would be the problem with that? While it is interesting in the > beginning to see different paradigms in different languages when you > already learned some it gets just annoying. At least I find it > annoying - the need to do a lot of things from the beginning all ~10 > years at least. > > > >> 2. Scala is not easier than the alternatives. > > I never said Scala is easier. Exactly the opposite actually. It is far > > more complex, but for the same reason is more powerful and less > > verbose. > > With modern IDEs verbosity is not such an issue and BTW: I would never > ever thought C(++) being too verbose and Java is very C-like. > > I would rather say you have more options to do the same thing which I > do not necessarily consider to be more powerful... > > > >> Want to escape from Java? Your options will be dynamic type (ala > >> groovy, jython). > > Following your way of reasoning: which practical business problems do > > dynamic languages solve? > > Personally I don't like dynamic languages for the following reasons: > [...] > > Agree: I also prefer static languages for basically your reaons. > > > My 2 cents: The real better language that I would prefer over Java ist > yet to be invented. > And further still too many focus on secondary elements (I have > discussed that in an earlier thread already). > > ...and I wonder why I am again in a thread of the kind (discussion > about programming languages) I already decided to ignore for the next > 5 years... - maybe because of the provocating title... > -- > Martin Wildam > http://www.google.com/profiles/mwildam > > -- > 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.
