On Jan 18, 12:08 pm, "Ricky Clarkson" <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you might be overestimating the difficulty of adding language > features. > > Also, of F#, Scala and Clojure, Scala *is* an incremental improvement. Its > feature set panders just as much to the OO programmer as the functional. > > If anything I'd like it to be more opinionated.
Scala absolutely caters to the traditional OO programmer and lets you use it as a Java++. And I believe that is what the majority of Scala programmers are doing. However, Scala supports more serious functional style immutable programming beyond what you get with C# or Fantom or Kotlin or Java 8 (with first class functions). Scala aims to compromise between a Haskell like pure functional approach and give you full JVM interop and compatability. What do you mean I'm overestimating the difficulty of adding language features? Someone privately messaged me this link: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/demo/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csc&lang2=java That's the same suite of comprehensive benchmarks but compares Java 7 to C#/.NET (Microsoft's implementation as opposed to Mono) running on Windows. Java 7 comes out as quite a bit faster. This coincides with my personal experience of benchmarking key pieces of software that I'm working on and comparing Java 7 to C#/Microsoft on my Windows laptop. So Java 7 is faster than C#/Microsoft which is faster than C#/Mono. I assume this is due to a more polished/tuned VM rather than a language level feature difference. I'd also say that unsigned integer support is still a good idea for the JVM to adopt and maybe stack allocation as well, but these features don't seem to be huge performance factors by themselves in most cases. -- 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.
