8 ms·

Looks decent, but I find it difficult to get excited about. Perhaps I'm not the target audience since I'm very comfortable with Scala (and love what Jetbrains i

Looks decent, but I find it difficult to get excited about. Perhaps I'm not the target audience since I'm very comfortable with Scala (and love what Jetbrains is doing with the Scala IntelliJ plugin).

frowaway001 13y ago
Agree. I'm always amazed by people who say "Kotlin is great because it doesn't try to do more than fix a few warts of Java!", ... did these people ever leave their Java bubble? The world is moving on at a frightening speed when it comes to language design currently, largely thanks to Idris. The idea that some people think "hey, let's pick this language from 1995 and change it slightly" is going to cut it ... that's just mind-boggling.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  A cynic would say that the world keeps moving on at a frightening speed towards rediscovering lessons from languages from 1960s.
  - klibertp 13y ago
    Nothing cynical in it, it's just how things are. We're spinning in circles with frightening speed indeed, it's the linear speed we're lacking...
- nirvdrum 13y ago
  I think it's more people are excited about Kotlin because it gives you some of the best parts of Scala without the long tail of confusing stuff. Sure, it's not revolutionary, but if the base level for everyone is ratcheted up a notch or two, it makes the next move even easier.
  - thescrewdriver 13y ago
    It feels like a trial version of Scala with some of the juiciest features missing until you upgrade.
- pron 13y ago
  I find it completely reasonable, and the right course of action. All those new ideas in language design, are exactly that: new and unproven (like the Hindley-Milner type system, which, while quite old already, has not been proven to be a major strength, and it is certainly complicated, esp. its undecipherable error messages). "Languages from 1995" (I don't know why you picked that specific year; some very successful languages are much, much older) have been used to build really good software, while "new" languages (Heskell, 1990; OCaml, 1996; Scala, 2003) have not proven to completely change software quality in a way just justifies their arguably less intuitive (if only culturally) designs. Where are all the bug-free Haskell operating systems, drivers and embedded controllers? Where are the OCaml scalable severs? Where are all the Scala complex enterprise apps? I'm not saying there isn't any really good software written in those languages, but not nearly enough to prove a significant qualitative advantage. On the other hand, when Java came out in 1995, it took maybe 5 years for pretty much the entire software world to adopt it, and it wasn't just marketing: its advantages were palpable and immediately apparent. I think (though I'm not sure), that C and later C++'s adoption was about as fast. If 25 year old languages like Haskell, and even 10 year-old languages like Scala, haven't shown such an immediate and enthusiastic widespread adoption, maybe their advantages aren't that extreme. Instead of those languages' designers sitting mind-boggled, maybe they should think long and hard about what it is that they're solving exactly and how important it really is. I think the problems tackled by more "modern" languages are either not important enough, or their solution is far from optimal. For example, it is quite possible that a good type system could help produce good software faster (though it isn't certain either), but that this type system is Hindley-Milner seems unlikely at this point. Pluggable type systems (like the ones recently introduced to that 1995 language, and, I believe, also supported by Kotlin) might actually be a better way to go forward. I also think that some more important advances in programming languages have come not from PL researchers, but from developers (Java, Erlang, Clojure).
  - oblio 13y ago
    He picked 1995 because of, obviously, Java. He was talking about Java :)
  - lmm 13y ago
    > when Java came out in 1995, it took maybe 5 years for pretty much the entire software world to adopt it, and it wasn't just marketing: its advantages were palpable and immediately apparent. If 25 year old languages like Haskell, and even 10 year-old languages like Scala, haven't shown such an immediate and enthusiastic widespread adoption, maybe their advantages aren't that extreme. Any number of companies are still using C++, which itself took decades to reach the level of popularity that it did; Java is the exception rather than the rule in that regard. (And if we're just comparing popularity, I don't know how it is in your corner of the industry, but Scala growth has been massive over the last few years where I've been looking - and that's not based on Sun's marketing millions, but on word of mouth from people who're using it and finding that it helps them write better programs)
- mushishi 13y ago
  Well, it's not all about the language. For me, and others, who are aware and have dwelved in advanced languages (such as Scala, Haskell, Lisp family), Java is often our choice for even hobby projects. It's not that we cannot see other languages's benefits. It's that in our opinion it's the best choice all things considered (how efficiently one can write readable/refactorable code being one of the most important things). Kotlin seems to be one very good alternative in the future.
jfb 13y ago
I think of it not as a stand-alone language, but rather as a strong statement of position in the Java-the-language arguments about future direction. It's a way for the Jetbrains people to influence the way the language will evolve.

frowaway001 13y ago

Agree. I'm always amazed by people who say "Kotlin is great because it doesn't try to do more than fix a few warts of Java!", ... did these people ever leave their Java bubble? The world is moving on at a frightening speed when it comes to language design currently, largely thanks to Idris. The idea that some people think "hey, let's pick this language from 1995 and change it slightly" is going to cut it ... that's just mind-boggling.

TeMPOraL 13y ago
A cynic would say that the world keeps moving on at a frightening speed towards rediscovering lessons from languages from 1960s.
- klibertp 13y ago
  Nothing cynical in it, it's just how things are. We're spinning in circles with frightening speed indeed, it's the linear speed we're lacking...
nirvdrum 13y ago
I think it's more people are excited about Kotlin because it gives you some of the best parts of Scala without the long tail of confusing stuff. Sure, it's not revolutionary, but if the base level for everyone is ratcheted up a notch or two, it makes the next move even easier.
- thescrewdriver 13y ago
  It feels like a trial version of Scala with some of the juiciest features missing until you upgrade.
pron 13y ago
I find it completely reasonable, and the right course of action. All those new ideas in language design, are exactly that: new and unproven (like the Hindley-Milner type system, which, while quite old already, has not been proven to be a major strength, and it is certainly complicated, esp. its undecipherable error messages). "Languages from 1995" (I don't know why you picked that specific year; some very successful languages are much, much older) have been used to build really good software, while "new" languages (Heskell, 1990; OCaml, 1996; Scala, 2003) have not proven to completely change software quality in a way just justifies their arguably less intuitive (if only culturally) designs. Where are all the bug-free Haskell operating systems, drivers and embedded controllers? Where are the OCaml scalable severs? Where are all the Scala complex enterprise apps? I'm not saying there isn't any really good software written in those languages, but not nearly enough to prove a significant qualitative advantage. On the other hand, when Java came out in 1995, it took maybe 5 years for pretty much the entire software world to adopt it, and it wasn't just marketing: its advantages were palpable and immediately apparent. I think (though I'm not sure), that C and later C++'s adoption was about as fast. If 25 year old languages like Haskell, and even 10 year-old languages like Scala, haven't shown such an immediate and enthusiastic widespread adoption, maybe their advantages aren't that extreme. Instead of those languages' designers sitting mind-boggled, maybe they should think long and hard about what it is that they're solving exactly and how important it really is. I think the problems tackled by more "modern" languages are either not important enough, or their solution is far from optimal. For example, it is quite possible that a good type system could help produce good software faster (though it isn't certain either), but that this type system is Hindley-Milner seems unlikely at this point. Pluggable type systems (like the ones recently introduced to that 1995 language, and, I believe, also supported by Kotlin) might actually be a better way to go forward. I also think that some more important advances in programming languages have come not from PL researchers, but from developers (Java, Erlang, Clojure).
- oblio 13y ago
  He picked 1995 because of, obviously, Java. He was talking about Java :)
- lmm 13y ago
  > when Java came out in 1995, it took maybe 5 years for pretty much the entire software world to adopt it, and it wasn't just marketing: its advantages were palpable and immediately apparent. If 25 year old languages like Haskell, and even 10 year-old languages like Scala, haven't shown such an immediate and enthusiastic widespread adoption, maybe their advantages aren't that extreme. Any number of companies are still using C++, which itself took decades to reach the level of popularity that it did; Java is the exception rather than the rule in that regard. (And if we're just comparing popularity, I don't know how it is in your corner of the industry, but Scala growth has been massive over the last few years where I've been looking - and that's not based on Sun's marketing millions, but on word of mouth from people who're using it and finding that it helps them write better programs)
mushishi 13y ago
Well, it's not all about the language. For me, and others, who are aware and have dwelved in advanced languages (such as Scala, Haskell, Lisp family), Java is often our choice for even hobby projects. It's not that we cannot see other languages's benefits. It's that in our opinion it's the best choice all things considered (how efficiently one can write readable/refactorable code being one of the most important things). Kotlin seems to be one very good alternative in the future.

jfb 13y ago

I think of it not as a stand-alone language, but rather as a strong statement of position in the Java-the-language arguments about future direction. It's a way for the Jetbrains people to influence the way the language will evolve.