If I wanted to adopt a new language to implement some tricksy code (for example to do CFD modelling) I'd be looking for a full stack to give me a compiler, tight test, build and CI integration, solid IDE support including full debug (local and remote), and a low pain threshold when using the language with Java in particular.
If I was building a web site, then I'd look for a language with a web stack that made life simpler and me more productive than what I was already using. I'm actually quite keen on the concept of using a mix of languages to get the job done, using a DSL to better describe a problem domain and then Java for the nuts and bolts would be fine. Of course you need to keep the developer metaphor similar enough so that it isn't used as an excuse to avoid getting hands dirty. On Mar 22, 2:44 pm, phil swenson <[email protected]> wrote: > I think what Fantom (or any other language trying to gain traction) needs is > a really good full stack web framework. Before Rails, Ruby was very > obscure. > > So my advice to the Scala, Fantom, Mirah, etc world would be: copy Rails. > That's what Groovy did and Groovy has definitely gained traction. > > And when I say copy Rails - I mean the whole stack. So by whole stack I > mean: build/automation framework, database framework, interactive command > line console, database migrations, easy configuration, set directory > structure, dev/test/production modes, built in testing framework. > > Even Java doesn't have such a stack. > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > If Fantom gains true generics, hopefully it can attract some of those > > that wants something more powerful than Java but not as advanced as > > Scala. There's clearly a missing hybrid piece which Java/Oracle won't > > fill and thus people jump to Scala - funny enough many of the same > > people who have been claiming C# is too advanced. > > > On Mar 22, 10:51 am, Phil <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I read Jonathan's and Cedric's posts (and many of the comments) and > > > both to be balanced and informative (in contrast to some of the > > > comments). I don't think anybody would argue that a functional > > > language can be more complex than an OO one, but it is a shame that > > > the tools still seem to be lacking - something Cedric added more > > > detail around. Java was better served inside seven years but there are > > > still areas where the tooling is neglected or less than perfect. > > > Demand will elicit supply, so as any new language (it feels a bit > > > strange to refer albeit indirectly to Scala as a new language) gains > > > traction more people go looking for tools and a percentage of those > > > people will contribute to the tools themselves. > > > > All said, Scala is still the functional language I will turn to when I > > > have the time to look at one in more detail. But sorry, Dick, I'm on > > > the wrong continent for training! > > > > On Mar 21, 4:44 pm, ranjith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > OK I did not say it - > > > > (Sorry to post a link, but it is worth it.) > >http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=562 > > > > > Dick, I am looking at you too.. > > > > Here is what Cedric beust said.. > >http://beust.com/weblog/2011/02/23/from-scala-back-to-java/ > > > -- > > 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. -- 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.
