Or because it lacks the big corporate backing, more likely! EPFL is certainly no Oracle or Microsoft And Martin Odersky, while a world class expert on type systems and able to write a superlative compiler against the JVM, surely doesn't engage in all that many business luncheons where he tries to woo banking CxOs into purchasing his software.
If Scala was to be judged on the basis of being "esoteric nonsense", instead of being judged based on the political (small p) affiliations of all the people involved, then it would surely be chosen. The phase is, of course, a compliment: - Esoteric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esotericism) is "That which is known to enlightened people" - Abstract Nonsense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_nonsense) describes a class of mathematical proof that is well regarded for its sophistication. So "Esoteric Nonsense" surely refers to "sophisticated stuff known by enlightened people" On 5 August 2010 15:28, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > Java, C#, and F# recommended by the ACM for SEC regulation spec > language. No mentioning of Scala [because it's complete esoteric > nonsense?]: http://is.gd/e49Vt (PDF) > > /Casper > > On Aug 4, 7:23 am, Wildam Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 18:28, Dick Wall <[email protected]> wrote: > > > or doing it with anonymous inner classes: > > > > > Arrays.sort(list, new Comparator() { > > > public int compare(Object o1, Object o2) { > > > String s1 = (String) o1; > > > String s2 = (String) o2; > > > return s1.toLowerCase().compareTo(s2.toLowerCase()); > > > } > > > }); > > > > > You need to try seeing this through the eyes of a room full of Java > > > virgins - as I did many times at Google working as an Android > > > Advocate. > > > > Yes, you are right, this is a similar annoying example from the Java > world. > > > > And at this point I remember that in the initial times I found that > > hard to read also. > > > > > This is just a ton of noise that threatens to completely > > > obscure the intent of the code. Yes, often things like the casts can > > > be removed via generics, > > > > Oh, and for the generics it took me a good while to understand. > > > > > Now take a look at the same thing in Scala: > > > val list = List("Hello", "very", "nice", "World") > > > list.sortWith((s1, s2) => (s1.toLowerCase < s2.toLowerCase)) > > > > > and yes, you have an alternative here as well, you just need to > > > understand what you are doing, but the alternative is: > > > > > list.sortBy(_.toLowerCase) > > > > Oh, and this is again such a point, where I really don't know which > > one I should choose for an implementation. I really can't easily > > figure out, which way is faster or more readable or more "Scala-like" > > or ... > > > > > I would argue that either of these two > > > examples is way easier to read than the Java versions. > > > > Although annoying and more to write I still prefer the Java version - > > anyway, such things as comparators I only need very seldom and I > > veeery rarely use anonymous classes. > > > > > Java's binary backwards compatibility has been it's own curse as well > > > as reward. We still have artifacts in the language that have pretty > > > much been accepted to be a bad idea, but 100% backwards compatibility > > > means that they will continue to be there > > > > I think, there could be things safely dropped that are depreceated > > since Java 1.4. I personally have not seen something below 1.4 in the > > last years and everyone using something below, I guess is anyway not > > going to update to 1.6 or later. And BTW: ASFAIK you can have several > > java runtimes and an application might use a particular one (just as > > solution for the veeeery old stuff). > > > > > It's a double edged sword. If you really need the features > > > of an older version of the language, why not just use the older > > > version? With Scala, this is even de-coupled from the JVM, so you can > > > still benefit from JVM improvements while using an older version of > > > the language - Python has done very well with this model. > > > > I think there is a difference in dropping things that are depreceated > > since a veery long time or breaking things from one version to the > > next maybe without either making it depreceated before. > > > > Microsoft had it the same way in the early days of .net - different > > programs needed different version of .net and there were > > incompatibilities. Customers needed plenty of runtime versions, more > > memory and disk space and things went slower and developers could not > > immediately gain from new features by upgrading because they would > > have need to change existing code. > > > > Even Microsoft switched to compatibility strategy. > > > > > Finally, I would urge anyone complaining about the tooling to give > > > Scala 2.8 a try with some of the new IDE integrations. I have to say > > > that for me, NetBeans 6.9 squeaks slightly ahead in this arena than > > > the others, but they have all got much better with 2.8. There is still > > > room for improvement, but NetBeans even offers some refactoring > > > support now, has great code completion, syntax coloring that is far > > > more extensive and informative than that for Java code, and the > > > debugger works great. > > > > Oh, I just recall that I had syntax coloring in VB already in 1998 (or > > even earlier) and now in Java there is not really much of it (at least > > by default). > > > > > I would like to see code completion for named > > > parameters, but I suspect even that will come in time. > > > > That is something I like very much in NetBeans because then I can use > > longer and better speaking variable names more often (because less to > > type with the autocompletion). > > > > > Above all, keep learning. Scala is just one new thing to learn, and > > > not the only one, so if not that, give something else a go - but I > > > believe it will expose you to new ideas. Developers should keep > > > learning - it's a healthy sign. > > > > Of course I keep learning. But learning a new language seriously (for > > day-to-day use) takes a lot of time. I do this only once in 10 years > > or so and as I have gone Java only about two years ago (when Scala was > > not even worth taking a closer look). My daily job involves still > > legacy development for Windows only, customer support, consulting etc. > > At home waiting wife with two children. Besides that I also gone Linux > > and do testing and bug reporting. Basically I don't have the time to > > learn something just for fun. When I learn a new programming language > > it must be by aiming to use it on a daily basis in the near future. I > > am not yet convinced that Scala would be the next big language for me. > > -- > > Martin Wildamhttp://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.
