> I'm sorry, but I feel I should point out that this contributes to the > academic/elite argument about Scala.
Isn't this argument getting boring after a while? I think it is sad that "academic" is being used as a slander along the line of "not being practical". Is there actual _any_ point someone is allowed to make which can't be hand-waved with "If you say that, you're an academic and therefore what you say doesn't count"? In my opinion cleaning up syntactical and semantical warts and weirdnesses is one of the most practical things to do, but feel free to disagree. > While you're reasoning from the side > of the language designer, and I could agree that Scala is much better > designed than Java, most developers just don't care the design of the > compiler, rather the usage of the language; Every item (except for "Hardcoded implicit conversions for certain types ") on the list above is actually something a user of Java is exposed to while reading code. No point above is in any substantial way related to an actual compiler implementation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/mQOLbV2Vza4J. 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.
