Gosh .. I am sorry but are you saying that Scala is for the experts and Java for regular people like me??? Do you think that is the good way to promote Scala??? I hope you are wrong otherwise the future of Scala looks very grim.
And of course a language can give you ALOT MORE than syntax sugar. Just read Reinier's email Now I have been trying to avoid Scala vs Java argument for a while but same people keep looking for same arguments over and over (its getting really annoyed). So let me ask you ... why on earth do you people think you need to trash Java in order to promote Scala????? Scala runs on JVM damn it so even Scala does things better does not mean Java cannot do it. Boiler plate is not much of a problem when you use something like lombok to remove most of them. I am learning Scala at home and at work I use Java and Erlang. I never feel using one language over another can give me that much of an advantage, though the abundance of Java libraries and tools does make difference. I heard people saying Java is the next cobol or is dead, to me those are just fanboy talks and no offense but I hate any kind of fanboy. As far as I see Java is still dominating the dev world and will not be changed in the foreseeable future. By the way, before you think Scala will take over the world someone please fix the tools first. They suck bad and please dont tell me tools dont matter unless you want to go back to the stone age. Sorry Josh, the last paragraph is not targeted you Kind Regards On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Josh Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Aug 26, 4:53 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > If you think "Pattern Matching" counts as something you can do in > > scala but can't in java, I must not have made my argument clear. > > That's just syntax sugar. Nice syntax sugar, surely, but syntax sugar > > nonetheless. What I'm talking about, is things like: > > What else is a language, but the niceties the syntax gives you? You > go on to list a ton of features that, yes I can get with Java. But > using them doesn't suck with Scala. > > I think the analogies here have been wrong. Instead of comparing to > other tools or toys, why not instruments? The JVM could be something > akin to the guitar. Most people playing it are actually really good > at reading tablature music, but not so much at reading sheet music. > This actually works mostly well, as there is little that I think can't > be written this way. In programming speak, tablature would be the > typical boilerplate that Java requires with a very verbose "your > finger goes here" kind of style. > > Some of us, though, want to move beyond tablature. To a place where > we understand the intricacies of the abstractions we have in fact > always been using. Hopefully to the point that we don't have to keep > implementing these abstractions, but can instead simply describe > them. (Instead of saying where the fingers go, as it were, simply > describe what note should be played.) > > Does this mean that some people will have to learn more to read what > we wrote? Almost undoubtedly. Just as to read a symphony I would > have to learn to read sheet music. I can not see why this is a > problem. I am not saying that it is beyond anyone. Just that they > may have to learn a few things along the way. Hopefully I'll learn > with them. :) > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
