3 ms·

Why would you use Java when you could use C++ which has a ton of extra features? Or Haskell which has a lot of neat abstractions? Or Python which is super easy

by __sr__ 8y ago

Why would you use Java when you could use C++ which has a ton of extra features? Or Haskell which has a lot of neat abstractions? Or Python which is super easy to use? Or Lisp which is extremely flexible? Simple, they all serve a particular purpose. Scala serves a particular purpose, so does Kotlin. I have found Kotlin to be an easy to use modern language which the JVM ecosystem was IMO lacking. That said, I am not a Kotlin advocate. I’d use if I had to choose from the JVM languages. Otherwise there are plenty of other languages and ecosystems to choose from. No one likes small enhancements over an existing language in a new language - it is usually not worth switching over. Remember D? IMO, Kotlin developers have made sensible choices in most cases while retaining full Java interop - something I consider an achievement.

lmm 8y ago
> Why would you use Java when you could use C++ which has a ton of extra features? Or Haskell which has a lot of neat abstractions? Or Python which is super easy to use? Or Lisp which is extremely flexible? Because C++ and Python aren't safe enough, Haskell is too hard to learn, and Lisp is too flexible to maintain. Or maybe you weigh the factors differently and wouldn't use Java, and would pick one of those languages instead. > Simple, they all serve a particular purpose. Scala serves a particular purpose, so does Kotlin. I disagree with this as a language design philosophy. Your language may end up being better suited for some purposes than others, but I find languages that aim to be general-purpose tend to work out better than languages that design for a small niche. Scala in particular was explicitly designed to be a "scalable language" that could be used for both large and small programs - and my experience is that it manages that. (Indeed I'd say it doesn't make sense to adopt it as a language if it's not replacing the majority of your stack - there's more to learn in Scala than in most languages, but if you can replace two languages with Scala then that's still less to learn overall). > No one likes small enhancements over an existing language in a new language - it is usually not worth switching over. Remember D? Exactly - I think Kotlin has largely made the same mistake as D or CoffeScript, of not being willing to make a big enough break from the existing language in the space. And yet at the same time we see that it's not so easy for a Java user to pick up, either.
- zaphirplane 8y ago
  > Because C++ and Python aren't safe enough I wonder what langauages are used in aircraft jets, military, space industry, pace makers ... etc
  - lmm 8y ago
    Often "C" but with enough additional tooling on top to qualify as a distinct language (by which I mean: you can't just pick up a random C library - or a random C programmer - and expect to be able to work with them in that environment). Sometimes Ada. Sometimes others. Sometimes a heterogeneous stack that might include Python in some non-safety-critical parts.

by __sr__ 8y ago

lmm 8y ago

> Why would you use Java when you could use C++ which has a ton of extra features? Or Haskell which has a lot of neat abstractions? Or Python which is super easy to use? Or Lisp which is extremely flexible? Because C++ and Python aren't safe enough, Haskell is too hard to learn, and Lisp is too flexible to maintain. Or maybe you weigh the factors differently and wouldn't use Java, and would pick one of those languages instead. > Simple, they all serve a particular purpose. Scala serves a particular purpose, so does Kotlin. I disagree with this as a language design philosophy. Your language may end up being better suited for some purposes than others, but I find languages that aim to be general-purpose tend to work out better than languages that design for a small niche. Scala in particular was explicitly designed to be a "scalable language" that could be used for both large and small programs - and my experience is that it manages that. (Indeed I'd say it doesn't make sense to adopt it as a language if it's not replacing the majority of your stack - there's more to learn in Scala than in most languages, but if you can replace two languages with Scala then that's still less to learn overall). > No one likes small enhancements over an existing language in a new language - it is usually not worth switching over. Remember D? Exactly - I think Kotlin has largely made the same mistake as D or CoffeScript, of not being willing to make a big enough break from the existing language in the space. And yet at the same time we see that it's not so easy for a Java user to pick up, either.

zaphirplane 8y ago
> Because C++ and Python aren't safe enough I wonder what langauages are used in aircraft jets, military, space industry, pace makers ... etc
- lmm 8y ago
  Often "C" but with enough additional tooling on top to qualify as a distinct language (by which I mean: you can't just pick up a random C library - or a random C programmer - and expect to be able to work with them in that environment). Sometimes Ada. Sometimes others. Sometimes a heterogeneous stack that might include Python in some non-safety-critical parts.