3 ms·
It's not the only way to do first-class modules, it's just the only currently known way where both modular and functional sides are actually useful without intr
by airless_bar 11y ago
It's not the only way to do first-class modules, it's just the only currently known way where both modular and functional sides are actually useful without introducing completely separate sub-languages.
Of course it's a lot harder than building one side and then claiming that the other side sucks because the whole paradigm sucks (but we still wanted some research grants (looking at you, OCaml)).
Scala's OO+FP approach allows me to appreciate both sides where they have their strengths. This is in contrast to languages like Haskell which can declare that FP is the best thing ever (because that's the only way to write programs in Haskell ("but, but, you can do these terrible contortions and write things that look like OOP in Haskell" – let's just skip that point, it doesn't add anything to the debate)).
- willtim 11y agoit's just the only currently known way where both modular and functional sides are actually useful without introducing completely separate sub-languages. This isn't true anymore and 1ML was my counterexample. I sympathise with your point that Scala is a working shipping product.
- airless_bar 11y agoI prefer to try that myself before coming to such a conclusion. Where is the 1ML compiler? I only found some outdated proof-of-concept 45kB interpreter with version 0.1.