3 ms·
I've been digging into scala recently, and although i'd have to agree, I couldn't say necessarily where this budget was blown. I love that the generics are impr
by ominous_prime 16y ago
I've been digging into scala recently, and although i'd have to agree, I couldn't say necessarily where this budget was blown. I love that the generics are improved over java (I usually don't need the IDE to check complex generics for me in scala as I do in java), but the overall type system can be daunting. First class function and closures are a easy win for me as well. I also love some of the more "advanced" functional constructs, and lazy evaluation (Stream! I love Stream!).
What gets me is the flexibility of the language. I don't want multiple ways to declare and/or bind the same function, and I don't want multiple ways to declare a lambda (why do I need a language shortcut, and then a shorter shortcut to choose from?). I guess where I'm going with this, is that I think the "complexity budget" would have been manageable, still with most of this feature set, if the language wasn't a DSL factory, and there was a single obvious way to write your program (obvious python bias on my part here).
Oh, and while I'm ranting; XML Literals? ಠ_ಠ
- whakojacko 16y agoI think basically everyone agrees that XML literals are a bad idea. There is a little more background described here: http://www.quora.com/Will-Scala-ever-remove-XML-literals http://www.quora.com/Will-Scala-ever-remove-XML-literals