3 ms·
Agreed: there's definitely still more features in Scala. But Java has taken "Scala - the good parts"; or at least, what they consider the good parts. That'll
by justinsb 13y ago
Agreed: there's definitely still more features in Scala. But Java has taken "Scala - the good parts"; or at least, what they consider the good parts. That'll be enough for many people, and my guess is it will suck the air out of Scala's room.
I do consider some of those other features important, and wish we could have them in Java, but they aren't as well-proven yet. (For me, it is easy immutable classes; I like pattern matching but can cope without it.)
- eranation 13y ago> But Java has taken "Scala - the good parts"; I respectfully disagree. if anything did that, it was Kotlin.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- lomnakkus 13y agoI think it's more that they've taken one good part, but in their defense it's probably one of the best parts :). Pattern matching and specifically algebraic data types are probably the most important to me since I find algebraic data types to be such an incredibly powerful data modeling tool. I find that almost any problem I encounter in my daily work can easily be modeled using algebraic data structures and from there the code is always some set of "trivial" set of pure pattern matching functions. Unfortunately the full power of pattern matching (compiler-checked exhaustiveness/consistency checks, specifically) can only really be emulated with the visitor pattern in Java -- which is just too much boilerplate syntax to make it useful outside of special cases.