3 ms·

There are other JVM languages that are far less verbose than Java, without the complexity of Scala, with better compile times, and better compatibility with pla

There are other JVM languages that are far less verbose than Java, without the complexity of Scala, with better compile times, and better compatibility with plain-old Java. For instance, Kotlin.

pkolaczk 13y ago
Kotlin is not much simpler than Scala. It implements some of the Scala features in actually more complex and IMHO less elegant way,(pattern matching, null safety), copies some 1:1 (declaration site variance) and leaves out some of the most powerful ones (implicits, dependent types). I personally don't buy it. I like languages which offer few, but very general and powerful features / abstractions, than languages that concentrate on directly supporting special cases.
- qznc 13y ago
  Making a language less simple/more complex, in some cases leads to an easier language. For example, Lisp has a simple syntax, but most people would consider infix math notation easier, although more complex.
trailfox 13y ago
Kotlin hasn't even been released yet, and it looks just like Scala.
- danieldk 13y ago
  It 'looks just like Scala'? It is not even a functional programming language. Let alone that it supports implicits, general operator overloading (operator overloading is very limited in Kotlin), existential types, etc. In fact Kotlin looks mostly like Java with some additions to make everyone's lives easier (closures, extension methods, data classes).
  - pkolaczk 13y ago
    It managed to copy almost every single Scala feature and is not even functional? Impressive.
  - pron 13y ago
    Kotlin is certainly in the "Java philosophy" camp (alongside Go, Dart), and yet achieves most if not all of Scala's original goals (though, unlike Scala, it is not a superset of Haskell, Lisp, Javascript and Java, so if you want to write Lisp, Haskell and Javascript, and insist on having all three compiled by the same compiler, you should stick with Scala :)). I have high hopes for Kotlin, and can certainly see my future projects being written in a combination of Kotlin and Clojure.
    - kenbot 13y ago
      A superset of ... what the? Why do you keep trotting out this garbage thread after thread? Every language takes influences from others, if that's what you meant. Scala is influenced by Java, C# and Haskell, in that order. Kotlin is influenced by Scala and Java, etc. The "superset" and "Lisp, Haskell and Javascript in the same compiler" comments are unhinged from the reality of any language I recognise.
    - joostdevries 13y ago
      I think I read that phrase from you before on nyc. I think it's a misleading catchprase. For me and I think most other Scala devs Scala is a statically typed FP-OO language. So Haskell doesn't do it justice because Haskells insistence on purity makes it impractical for me in getting stuff done. And Java doesn't do it justice because Java is held back by its history. "Superset of" makes it sounds like a weakness and overwrought. In my experience it offers a sweat spot of the best features of static FP and OO. So what about your mention of Lisp and Javascript? Unless you're deep in some framework you don't need to know about the support for macros and structural typing. I've ignored those two so far because I haven't needed them (yet?). And I haven't felt they were in my way. So where you say "a superset of Haskell, Lisp, Javascript and Java" I say "the sweet spot of the best features of static FP and OO for the real world. Leveraging the JVM ecosystem".
      - asdasf 13y ago
        >So Haskell doesn't do it justice because Haskells insistence on purity makes it impractical for me in getting stuff done I know this will sound snarky, but I have to ask: have you tried haskell before? I only ever hear that line of reasoning from people who have never used it (and I was once one of them, using that very same reasoning to choose a multi-paradigm language). We bailed on scala for haskell precisely because it is pure and has a better type system.
mcv 13y ago
I was expecting Groovy, which is indeed less verbose than Java, less complex than Scala, and has excellent compatibility with Java. I don't know about compile times. The main downside of Groovy is: it's not as fast. And of course the programming paradigm is less revolutionary and more pragmatic, though that could also be a big upside.
- vorg 13y ago
  See my comment below for more downsides... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6836632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6836632

There are other JVM languages that are far less verbose than Java, without the complexity of Scala, with better compile times, and better compatibility with plain-old Java. For instance, Kotlin.

pkolaczk 13y ago

Kotlin is not much simpler than Scala. It implements some of the Scala features in actually more complex and IMHO less elegant way,(pattern matching, null safety), copies some 1:1 (declaration site variance) and leaves out some of the most powerful ones (implicits, dependent types). I personally don't buy it. I like languages which offer few, but very general and powerful features / abstractions, than languages that concentrate on directly supporting special cases.

qznc 13y ago
Making a language less simple/more complex, in some cases leads to an easier language. For example, Lisp has a simple syntax, but most people would consider infix math notation easier, although more complex.

trailfox 13y ago

Kotlin hasn't even been released yet, and it looks just like Scala.

danieldk 13y ago
It 'looks just like Scala'? It is not even a functional programming language. Let alone that it supports implicits, general operator overloading (operator overloading is very limited in Kotlin), existential types, etc. In fact Kotlin looks mostly like Java with some additions to make everyone's lives easier (closures, extension methods, data classes).
- pkolaczk 13y ago
  It managed to copy almost every single Scala feature and is not even functional? Impressive.
- pron 13y ago
  Kotlin is certainly in the "Java philosophy" camp (alongside Go, Dart), and yet achieves most if not all of Scala's original goals (though, unlike Scala, it is not a superset of Haskell, Lisp, Javascript and Java, so if you want to write Lisp, Haskell and Javascript, and insist on having all three compiled by the same compiler, you should stick with Scala :)). I have high hopes for Kotlin, and can certainly see my future projects being written in a combination of Kotlin and Clojure.
  - kenbot 13y ago
    A superset of ... what the? Why do you keep trotting out this garbage thread after thread? Every language takes influences from others, if that's what you meant. Scala is influenced by Java, C# and Haskell, in that order. Kotlin is influenced by Scala and Java, etc. The "superset" and "Lisp, Haskell and Javascript in the same compiler" comments are unhinged from the reality of any language I recognise.
  - joostdevries 13y ago
    I think I read that phrase from you before on nyc. I think it's a misleading catchprase. For me and I think most other Scala devs Scala is a statically typed FP-OO language. So Haskell doesn't do it justice because Haskells insistence on purity makes it impractical for me in getting stuff done. And Java doesn't do it justice because Java is held back by its history. "Superset of" makes it sounds like a weakness and overwrought. In my experience it offers a sweat spot of the best features of static FP and OO. So what about your mention of Lisp and Javascript? Unless you're deep in some framework you don't need to know about the support for macros and structural typing. I've ignored those two so far because I haven't needed them (yet?). And I haven't felt they were in my way. So where you say "a superset of Haskell, Lisp, Javascript and Java" I say "the sweet spot of the best features of static FP and OO for the real world. Leveraging the JVM ecosystem".
    - asdasf 13y ago
      >So Haskell doesn't do it justice because Haskells insistence on purity makes it impractical for me in getting stuff done I know this will sound snarky, but I have to ask: have you tried haskell before? I only ever hear that line of reasoning from people who have never used it (and I was once one of them, using that very same reasoning to choose a multi-paradigm language). We bailed on scala for haskell precisely because it is pure and has a better type system.

mcv 13y ago

I was expecting Groovy, which is indeed less verbose than Java, less complex than Scala, and has excellent compatibility with Java. I don't know about compile times. The main downside of Groovy is: it's not as fast. And of course the programming paradigm is less revolutionary and more pragmatic, though that could also be a big upside.

vorg 13y ago
See my comment below for more downsides... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6836632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6836632