8 ms·

Then you should probably invest in Scala. The (J)VM is actually a blessing, Scala is standing on the shoulder of giants. I'm not talking about Oracle, but other

Then you should probably invest in Scala. The (J)VM is actually a blessing, Scala is standing on the shoulder of giants. I'm not talking about Oracle, but other languages that depend on JVM such as Clojure, etc, that will (hopefully) push the VM forward.

viraptor 14y ago
I don't like Scala being based on JVM/.NET for the following reasons (I know many people don't agree, this is all subjective): - inherited null (I love Option<> and Either<> pattern and exceptions, nullable stuff is a problem) - relying on foreign ecosystem (you end up with half functional, half "we have inherited all this mutable stuff, so let's use it" ugly mixture) - startup time (if you write things that are script-ish in nature, this is really annoying)
- wiradikusuma 14y ago
  The first two are required for Java compatibility, the latest probably can be mitigated by compiling it to native using LLVM (http://greedy.github.com/scala-llvm/ http://greedy.github.com/scala-llvm/) (I haven't used it).
- pjmlp 14y ago
  > - startup time (if you write things that are script-ish in nature, this is really annoying) Just compile your code to native using a native code compiler for JVM bytecodes. There are quite a few to chose from.
  - viraptor 14y ago
    So scalac and then another compiler after each modification? That's speeding up startup, but slows down development even more.
    - pjmlp 14y ago
      Of course you should only compile to native code when making the package to distribute the scripts.