3 ms·
Scala is a great language, but the requirement that I ship Scala's libraries if I want to do thinks the Scala way is a nonstarter for the use cases I have. Yes,
by headius 16y ago
Scala is a great language, but the requirement that I ship Scala's libraries if I want to do thinks the Scala way is a nonstarter for the use cases I have. Yes, you can Proguard a lot of that away, but if I use Scala's collections or other libraries, I'm still stuck adding a runtime lib.
As far as the others go...I don't disagree. Perfect integration with Java is perhaps a bit debateable, since you can't overload constructors, can't define real static methods Java can see, and so on. But those are minor items.
I don't intend Mirah to be a Scala-killer either. Scala is more of a platform now than just a language, and if you're on that platform, you have my blessing. If, however, you just want something to replace javac everywhere you use Java today, I believe Mirah is a better fit.
- msie 16y agoIf, however, you just want something to replace javac everywhere you use Java today, I believe Mirah is a better fit. My prayers have been answered! A better java has arrived!
- riobard 16y agoYou are right. It really depends on use cases. In many scenarios, a 5mb lib is just another dep that build tools such as sbt will handle for you. In many others, 5mb overhead to a 500kb mobile app is obviously overkill. My use case is fine with Scala: no deployment issue, no Java legacy other than using a few libs, and everything else is fresh in Scala. So far I'm very happy with the choice. FP makes things really compact. I like Mirah for the fact that it can generate Java source code (vs. JVM bytecode). I would imagine there are many cases Java compatibility down to the source code level would be desired. Anyway, good job!