4 ms·

> Java is more optimized performance wise than Scala and Kotlin and performance is important not just cool syntax. Not true. You're running bytecode, not Java.

by xaduha 10y ago

> Java is more optimized performance wise than Scala and Kotlin and performance is important not just cool syntax. Not true. You're running bytecode, not Java. Compiled JVM languages benefit from JVM optimizations all the same. No one will actually 'kill' Java, it's about mindset of the users and companies. Kill Java = Give another JVM language a try. Oracle JVM isn't the only JVM implementation.

pjmlp 10y ago
> Oracle JVM isn't the only JVM implementation. Quite true, but from Azul, IBM, HP, Jamaica, Aonix, Excelsior, Gamato,CodenameOne, ... who is interested in replacing Java (the language)?
- xaduha 10y ago
  First, JVM vendors have to conform to specifications, that's all. And introduction of invokedynamic and other stuff that makes it easier for other JVM languages to exist obviously means that they aren't against the idea. All in all I'm for interoperation. "And", not "or". No one is forcing you to rewrite existing Java code.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    My point is that Java is to the JVM, just like C is to UNIX, JavaScript to the browsers, VB/C#/F#/C++ to .NET, Swift/Objective-C to iOS, ... Sure you can have other languages running there, but unless their is first tier support for those languages, most customers won't care and will only allow for first tier programming languages.
TheGuyWhoCodes 10y ago
If we take Scala for example that's only true if you write Java-like Scala code and what's the point of that? Once you go deep with Scala magic it goes downhill, but prob. 80% as fast. I think Java and other JVM languages can co-exist nicely, depending on the task at hand, there is no "need" to kill anything, I wish you could mix and match code from different JVM languages easily.
- xaduha 10y ago
  Kotlin solves what Scala didn't. Great Java interop, first class IDE support, easier to get into. Whichever way you look at it Kotlin code is nicer than Java, even if written Java-like.

by xaduha 10y ago

pjmlp 10y ago

> Oracle JVM isn't the only JVM implementation. Quite true, but from Azul, IBM, HP, Jamaica, Aonix, Excelsior, Gamato,CodenameOne, ... who is interested in replacing Java (the language)?

xaduha 10y ago
First, JVM vendors have to conform to specifications, that's all. And introduction of invokedynamic and other stuff that makes it easier for other JVM languages to exist obviously means that they aren't against the idea. All in all I'm for interoperation. "And", not "or". No one is forcing you to rewrite existing Java code.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  My point is that Java is to the JVM, just like C is to UNIX, JavaScript to the browsers, VB/C#/F#/C++ to .NET, Swift/Objective-C to iOS, ... Sure you can have other languages running there, but unless their is first tier support for those languages, most customers won't care and will only allow for first tier programming languages.

TheGuyWhoCodes 10y ago

If we take Scala for example that's only true if you write Java-like Scala code and what's the point of that? Once you go deep with Scala magic it goes downhill, but prob. 80% as fast. I think Java and other JVM languages can co-exist nicely, depending on the task at hand, there is no "need" to kill anything, I wish you could mix and match code from different JVM languages easily.

xaduha 10y ago
Kotlin solves what Scala didn't. Great Java interop, first class IDE support, easier to get into. Whichever way you look at it Kotlin code is nicer than Java, even if written Java-like.