Ahh, the belief that some more abstract language contains concepts that simply aren't relevant to you. This is perhaps *the* defining characteristic of a blub developer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(computer_programmer)#Blub
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(computer_programmer)#Blub>I saw similar "it's too complicated for my co-workers" arguments about object-oriented programming, when that was still wet behind the ears... To a Java developer, visual basic is Blub To a Fantom developer, Java is Blub To a Scala developer, Fantom is Blub Scala and Clojure are difficult to compare, as neither is really a superset of the other, they've just taken different directions. Dynamic typing *works* for Clojure, and ties in very nicely with the homoiconic nature of the language. On the other hand, Scala gives you the equally awesome power of type classes, which demand static typing. Take your pick! 2010/8/29 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> > > > 2010/8/29 Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> > > I'm still convinced, as Cedric said, that there is too much stuff >> packed into a single language; but if I can enforce picking only some >> of that stuff, I'll feel better. >> >> It could possibly match my need for a trimmed down Scala. >> > > The language that comes the closest to this ideal is Fantom<http://fantom.org> > . > > Fantom manages to add two very useful features (closures and type > inference) but stops short of adding pretty much anything else. From this > respect, I would characterize Fantom as "minimalistic" (if you're not sure a > feature is useful, leave it out) as opposed to Scala's and C++' maximalism > (both these languages contain close to every single language feature known > to man, except maybe Intercal's COME FROM :-)). > > Because of this minimalism, there are still a couple of design aspects that > I don't agree with in Fantom, but overall I think it's a great language that > has, so far, avoided the complexity pitfall that Scala unfortunately fell > into. For example, Fantom doesn't support overloading and only allows > collections to have generic types (a surprising compromise that ends working > out very well in practice). > > -- > Cédric > > > > -- > 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.
