4 ms·
Ironically, it may turn out that what appeared initially to be one of Scala's greatest strengths, the close integration with the JVM, may be its undoing. As a r
by cageface 15y ago
Ironically, it may turn out that what appeared initially to be one of Scala's greatest strengths, the close integration with the JVM, may be its undoing. As a richly multi-paradigm language Scala is complex enough as it is, but the various warts and leaky abstractions it inherits as a citizen of the JVM make it that much more perplexing.
Perhaps the idea that Java programmers would find it an easy first step into functional programming was incorrect, and in fact those bold enough in the first place to dip their toes into FP would prefer a cleaner and less compromised view of FP as provided by Haskell, OCaml etc?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- pangram 15y agoI think there's a sizable audience out there that would like to use more FP but would also like to be able to integrate into their existing infrastructure. If you're already using Java it would seem much easier to sell "Hey, let's try Scala/Clojure for this, it can call our existing stuff" than it would be to sell "Let's rework substantial portions of our infrastructure so we can integrate with Haskell."
- cageface 15y agoYes, but these are the same people that run screaming after their first stroll through the function signatures in the collections library. The kind of people willing to man up for Haskell aren't going to be so easily discouraged.
- mafribe 15y agoThere's nothing preventing compilation of Scala to other architectures. Indeed Scala compilers targeting the CLR and LLVM are under construction. Naturally that doesn't alleviate the problems baked into Scala to deal with JVM idiosyncrasies.