On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]>wrote:
> Fabrizio,
>
> I'm not following this thread properly, but I'll just note that Scala
> is intentionally simple. It has more features than Java, but less
> pointless complexity.
Saying this without mentioning that Scala adds complexity of its own as well
is a bit disingenuous, and it's also the reason why strong Scala advocacy
tends to turn people off rather than getting them interested in the
language.
A couple of examples (about comprehensions, since I just encountered these
recently so they're fresh in my mind):
- In a for expression, if you declare a variable, you must omit "val".
- The following syntax is invalid:
for (a <- accounts if account.id % 2 == 0) { yield a }
(yield can't appear there)
I find oddities like these ones in the Scala grammar *all the time*, and to
me, they are the sign of a language that's growing too big. I can deal with
them, and obviously, so can you, but this is very much reminiscent of C++ to
me: a language that's so complex that organizations that adopt it must
agree on which features *not* to use in order to keep the code base sane.
--
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].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
