8 ms·
1. It got many important things right, like Unicode by default. It has a strong garbage collector and no GIL. The language may be stale but therre's a lot to re
by michaelochurch 12y ago
1. It got many important things right, like Unicode by default. It has a strong garbage collector and no GIL. The language may be stale but therre's a lot to recommend the platform.
2. Sun. It ended badly, but that's a company that was synonymous with innovation for quite a good run. Just as Google has energized Go (another not great, but solidly good by the standards of its time, language) having Sun behind Java was a major advantage.
3. Lack of a suitable challenger. PHBs will always see Python as unsuitable for production (and they're wrong) but mediocre programmers will never learn Haskell or Clojure. In my estimation, Go is the challenger, and it's only 5 years old.
- dustingetz 12y agoMediocre programmers can learn scala, and the idea is that over time scala can help them become less mediocre. Or at least shift the bar in the right direction.
- fizwhiz 12y agoThat's a pretty strong opinion. Scala is statically typed, runs on the JVM, is Java compatible, is both object-oriented and functional, and is not verbose. Care to elaborate why Scala is bound to attract only mediocre programmers?
- warmfuzzykitten 12y agoI'd rather see a discussion of why Scala is unsuited to mediocre programmers, because it's type system - particularly as applied by the standard libraries - is too complex and baroque for mere mortals.
- AnimalMuppet 12y agodustingetz didn't say "Scala is bound to attract only mediocre programmers". He (I presume) said "Mediocre programmers can learn Scala". I presume the intent was "Even mediocre programmers can learn Scala", that is, you don't have to be a rock star.