4 ms·
This doesn't surprise me in the least. The problem with Scala's adoption in my opinion is that everyone, Pollack included, writes about Scala being a "better J
by bphogan 15y ago
This doesn't surprise me in the least.
The problem with Scala's adoption in my opinion is that everyone, Pollack included, writes about Scala being a "better Java." The Scala books out there, his book included, take that approach. assuming that its audience is a bunch of Java programmers that want a better syntax. "Instead of using this syntax to call this existing Java library, you do this instead:"
So, of course he's going to get frustrated when the Java folks don't "get" it. The article links to another article about the "perils of JavaSchools" which don't teach "real programming."
Scala, like Clojure, strives to be "real programming" on the JVM. It's exciting, and in my opinion, a very fun language and can totally stand on its own.
So, given that Pollack is finding that the benefits are not always there for Java programmers, maybe we'll see a shift in the way Scala is taught or presented. I know at least I would love to see a "so you know Perl, Python, or Ruby? Learn Scala!" approach.
- cageface 15y agoThe chief problem with this is that a big part of Scala's value proposition is its integration with the JVM. In fact, a lot of the more awkward bits of Scala (and Clojure) are the price that has to paid to interoperate with Java. It's worth it for predominantly Java shops but for people already outside of that ecosystem it just looks like baggage. For people without debts to the JVM I think it would make as much sense to just jump to Haskell.
- bphogan 15y agoAgreed on one hand, but there is some great stuff on the JVM, and that is stuff you could expose people to eventually.