On Aug 7, 11:32 am, Ben Schulz <[email protected]> wrote: > On the plus side one does not have to be a rocket scientist to > read and write Java code, but when one's intuition of what is right > gets confounded, i.e. one stumbles over a Java puzzler, things get > hairy.
I don't think there is disagreement that Java is complex in places and has puzzlers. But, most of the time its pretty readable, and is the de facto standard for cross language examples/learning in many cases. There is a real question as to whether Scala can fulfil that role. > Scala on the other hand has its complexity in all the right places: > Where it helps developers solve complex problems with complex > solutions. The issue with that is of course that reading library > code[*] requires a lot more than the seemingly simple Java code. Right. Some Scala library code has very complex signatures (the "longest sucide note" thread on Stack overflow) > PS: As far as fantom goes, I really want to like it, but I just don't > see the point of having an unsound type system. Well, thats a separate thread. But I'll take it you'd disapprove of a dynamic language like Ruby too. Just because a language isn't mathematically/academically proven doesn't make it unusable. In fact, the rise of dynamic languages in recent years is probably a sign that pushing a language with more static typing (Scala) might not be the way the industry wants to go. -- 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.
