If this is your interpretation of what "programming language" means, then my argument becomes quite a bit simpler:
No programming language has ever become popular because of its featureset. They lucked into it based on the features of platforms which peddle that language as preferred language. Scala is not currently the official primary language for any platform. Hence, history says it'll never become a 15%er. Your further music analogy made absolutely no sense to me. Do you not understand me when I talk about how no truly popular language (>15% worldwide usage at some point in time) has ever had nice syntax? I have been highlighting a number of scala syntax features which I feel are misguided, but that's a different argument altogether: Let's hypothetically state that Scala syntax is awesome. I'm trying to tell you that history indicates this does not meaningfully relate to scala ever becoming a 15%er. On Aug 27, 2:44 am, 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
