4 ms·

- [1] comes down to the idea of not having to build two separate concepts (namely, operators AND methods) with different syntax, different declaration styles, d

- [1] comes down to the idea of not having to build two separate concepts (namely, operators AND methods) with different syntax, different declaration styles, different parsing rules, ... into the language. Scala has only methods (which can have a “symbolic” name). The usual precedence rules are based on that name. - case classes: I love them. - _: The underscore has one meaning, “there is something, but I don't care about the name”. Super simple. - forgetting = in a function def can make it mean something else: I agree, it is very error-prone. As far as I know, there are some proposals to get completely rid of procedure syntax. - currying syntax: PinS has a pretty good explanation why it works that way. It is certainly not perfect, but less error-prone than alternatives. - the imports (especially renaming): Many languages have this feature and I have not seen any issues with it. - arbitrary rules on whether construction needs "new" or not: No. The rule is that you always need new to construct an instance. -[3]: You can do crazy stuff in every language. Have a look at functional code written in Java. - And it even has macros, but all of its very many language features aren't implemented as macros: No. In a sense, ALL features are implemented via macros, because the compiler API and the reflection API (macros) are pretty much the same underneath.

lucian1900 13y ago
- I don't mind unifying operators and functions/methods, I think it's a great idea. What I do dislike is having lots of optional syntax that is however still used much of the time. I much prefer using ( ) only for disambiguation - case classes are great because they're a Algebraic Data Types. I dislike their syntax - the underscore is sometimes necessary for disambiguation, that's the only thing that bothers me - I don't mind the fact that renaming imports is possible, I think that's great. I just dislike the particularly unusual syntax, since = is already there for symbol binding - since there isn't a de-sugared version of every language construct, I doubt macros are indeed that equivalent. Again, I think macros are great, but it worries me when a language's syntax is already so complex through "hard-coded" methods (as opposed to the more programmatic macros)

lucian1900 13y ago

- I don't mind unifying operators and functions/methods, I think it's a great idea. What I do dislike is having lots of optional syntax that is however still used much of the time. I much prefer using ( ) only for disambiguation - case classes are great because they're a Algebraic Data Types. I dislike their syntax - the underscore is sometimes necessary for disambiguation, that's the only thing that bothers me - I don't mind the fact that renaming imports is possible, I think that's great. I just dislike the particularly unusual syntax, since = is already there for symbol binding - since there isn't a de-sugared version of every language construct, I doubt macros are indeed that equivalent. Again, I think macros are great, but it worries me when a language's syntax is already so complex through "hard-coded" methods (as opposed to the more programmatic macros)