29 ms·

I also agree with all of that. Scala is an ugly incomplete attempt at replicating Haskell on the JVM that fails at being Haskell, and also fails at being Java,

by orclev 13y ago

I also agree with all of that. Scala is an ugly incomplete attempt at replicating Haskell on the JVM that fails at being Haskell, and also fails at being Java, it's the worst of both worlds. On a semi-related note have you taken a look at Ceylon? I found out about the language a few months back and I really like it. It isn't Haskell by any means, but for a JVM based language it's one of the most Haskell-ish feeling languages I've found. The type system in particular reminds me a lot of the Haskell type system.

eklavya 13y ago
Dude cmon seriously, you find ceylon closer to haskell than Scala? I must have read about another ceylon then.
- orclev 13y ago
  Scala tries to be Haskell but does so badly. Ceylon isn't trying to be Haskell, but the type system feels very Haskell-ish. It isn't functional, but that's fine, it's based on the JVM after all so things like tail-call optimization are going to be tough anyway. It has non-nullable by default variables. It supports immutable data (and encourages you to use it as much as possible). The way you instantiate an instance of an object is very much like the way types are instantiated in Haskell. It has mixin inheritance which is very similar to an OO version of the class system in Haskell. In other words, it isn't Haskell, isn't trying to be Haskell, and isn't functional, but it does have a lot of the things I love from Haskell, and it feels very elegant to boot. Scala I feel is what happens when you literally try to copy chunks of Haskell on top of Java, and it's a mess. Ceylon I think is what happens when you take the best features of Haskell, and where it makes sense to do so apply them to a traditional OO system. I'd still rather do something in Haskell, but if I absolutely must use a JVM based language, I think Ceylon is a very strong contender that would make a lot of people who are familiar with Haskell feel right at home.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Scala tries to be Haskell but does so badly. No, it doesn't try to be Haskell. It tries to be something very different from Haskell which happens to share some features with Haskell. You, presumably, don't like what it actually tries to be, and that's fine, but its just incorrect to say that it is trying to be Haskell but doing it poorly.
  - frowaway001 13y ago
    This comment is so confused, that it's getting funny again.

by orclev 13y ago

eklavya 13y ago

Dude cmon seriously, you find ceylon closer to haskell than Scala? I must have read about another ceylon then.

orclev 13y ago
Scala tries to be Haskell but does so badly. Ceylon isn't trying to be Haskell, but the type system feels very Haskell-ish. It isn't functional, but that's fine, it's based on the JVM after all so things like tail-call optimization are going to be tough anyway. It has non-nullable by default variables. It supports immutable data (and encourages you to use it as much as possible). The way you instantiate an instance of an object is very much like the way types are instantiated in Haskell. It has mixin inheritance which is very similar to an OO version of the class system in Haskell. In other words, it isn't Haskell, isn't trying to be Haskell, and isn't functional, but it does have a lot of the things I love from Haskell, and it feels very elegant to boot. Scala I feel is what happens when you literally try to copy chunks of Haskell on top of Java, and it's a mess. Ceylon I think is what happens when you take the best features of Haskell, and where it makes sense to do so apply them to a traditional OO system. I'd still rather do something in Haskell, but if I absolutely must use a JVM based language, I think Ceylon is a very strong contender that would make a lot of people who are familiar with Haskell feel right at home.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Scala tries to be Haskell but does so badly. No, it doesn't try to be Haskell. It tries to be something very different from Haskell which happens to share some features with Haskell. You, presumably, don't like what it actually tries to be, and that's fine, but its just incorrect to say that it is trying to be Haskell but doing it poorly.
- frowaway001 13y ago
  This comment is so confused, that it's getting funny again.