3 ms·
Maybe. But at least these languages were meant for large applications so the outcome of the comparison would be more meaningful. Apart from that, Scala uses th
by misja111 1y ago
Maybe. But at least these languages were meant for large applications so the outcome of the comparison would be more meaningful.
Apart from that, Scala uses the Option type instead of null, and it has ADT's; And I dont know about C# but in Java and Scala using low level mutexes is considered a code smell, the standard libraries provide higher level concurrent data structures.
On top of that, Scala provides several widely used IO frameworks that make dealing with concurrency and side effect much more simple and less error-prone, it would win the comparison with Rust here.
- Ygg2 1y ago> On top of that, Scala provides several widely used ... With Scala is less what you miss, and more what you have. - Custom operators. Those are great for DSLs and rendering your code to look like utter gibberish, and confuse IDEs. - SBT. Shudder. - Scala 2 codebases.
- misja111 1y agoYour first 2 are good points. Your last point is of course not relevant when you're considering which language to pick for your new enterprise application. Anyways, IMO it would have been much more interesting and useful to compare Rust with Scala/Java/C#, whatever the outcome of the comparison would be.
- Ygg2 1y ago> Your last point is of course not relevant when you're considering which language to pick for your new enterprise application. Sure I might be writing a new app, but what if some dependency is Scala 2.12-? As for your latter point. I still think Rust would be more productive than all listed. I would expect Scala might give Rust the biggest run for its money. C# could probably be closest to Rust perf wise. Or not. Depends on the workload.