4 ms·

Your math is a bit off: Scala can be _up to_ 10x more concise than Java. This specific Clojure code was either 3x or 4x more concise than this specific piece of

Your math is a bit off: Scala can be _up to_ 10x more concise than Java. This specific Clojure code was either 3x or 4x more concise than this specific piece of Scala code (based on char count or line count). My experience over the last few years suggests that Scala code can be anything from 2-3x to 10x more concise than Java. My experience also suggests that Clojure code can easily be up to 10x more concise than Java. I don't think too many people would argue with that as a general rule (or at least, not too many people who've programmed in all three languages :) I'll take a look at the link you posted and respond in more detail later.

Uchikoma 15y ago
Could you elaborate on the point where my math is off? You mentioned a range from 3-10x between Scala and Java, and we have a 4x multiplier with your code (260 LOC Clojure vs. 1000 LOC Scala). This would result in a 12 - 40x range which I quoted in my comment. I also find it a little discomforting that "Scala is 3-4x more concise than Java in general" becomes "my experience over the last few years suggests that Scala code can be anything from 2-3x" in a matter of minutes. You're sure about your numbers? Not wanting to be offensive, but it sounds a little like you pull them out of thin air.
- seancorfield 15y ago
  I think you're striving for absolutes where only relatives exist. You're right that I said 3-4x in one place and 2-3x in another. Sorry. It's a gut feeling. Is it 2x, 3x, 4x? One of those. Any of those depending on the code. Somewhere in the middle. It's going to depend on the specific code. You can't reasonably suggest that language X is always Nx more concise than language Y, surely? So, somewhere in that space, Scala is a substantially more concise than Java (will you allow "substantially"?) and Clojure seems to be substantially more concise than Scala. Is that suitably vague for you? :)
- Uchikoma 15y ago
  A little bit disappointed about the down votes, I'd hope we as an industry take numbers not so lightly and find "Is it 2x, 3x, 4x? One of those." no longer comfy. I'd also hope we strive more towards "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and more science than folklore.

Uchikoma 15y ago

Could you elaborate on the point where my math is off? You mentioned a range from 3-10x between Scala and Java, and we have a 4x multiplier with your code (260 LOC Clojure vs. 1000 LOC Scala). This would result in a 12 - 40x range which I quoted in my comment. I also find it a little discomforting that "Scala is 3-4x more concise than Java in general" becomes "my experience over the last few years suggests that Scala code can be anything from 2-3x" in a matter of minutes. You're sure about your numbers? Not wanting to be offensive, but it sounds a little like you pull them out of thin air.

seancorfield 15y ago
I think you're striving for absolutes where only relatives exist. You're right that I said 3-4x in one place and 2-3x in another. Sorry. It's a gut feeling. Is it 2x, 3x, 4x? One of those. Any of those depending on the code. Somewhere in the middle. It's going to depend on the specific code. You can't reasonably suggest that language X is always Nx more concise than language Y, surely? So, somewhere in that space, Scala is a substantially more concise than Java (will you allow "substantially"?) and Clojure seems to be substantially more concise than Scala. Is that suitably vague for you? :)
Uchikoma 15y ago
A little bit disappointed about the down votes, I'd hope we as an industry take numbers not so lightly and find "Is it 2x, 3x, 4x? One of those." no longer comfy. I'd also hope we strive more towards "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and more science than folklore.