7 ms·

Yeah, the problem is that the theoretical underpinnings of DOT do not represent Scala as we know it; that would be and is a different compiler (Dotty). If Dot

Yeah, the problem is that the theoretical underpinnings of DOT do not represent Scala as we know it; that would be and is a different compiler (Dotty). If Dotty works out then we will, for the first time, have a fully specified Scala on sound theoretical footing. Along for the ride: much faster compiler, better tooling, streamlined type system, and nice-to-haves like union types and implicit function types, among other useful features.

mafribe 10y ago
It's certainly true that today (3 March 2017) there is still a gap between DOT and the current Scala compiler (version 2.12.1) -- just as there is a gap between Haskell and the lazy lambda calculus. However, as a conceptual guide what Scala is, DOT is quite helpful. With time DOT will become even more helpful In general, it's OK for there to be a gap between a real programming language, and its theoretical toy model. That's the gap between theory and practise. Why would you care about theory if it was as complex as practise? The ideal case (embodied in the lambda-calculus) is that the theory is much easier, but looses only a modest amount of precision.