3 ms·

> A 5 year old release is not prehistoric when you are thinking of building a system for the long term that will be very big. Then enterprises should probably

> A 5 year old release is not prehistoric when you are thinking of building a system for the long term that will be very big. Then enterprises should probably stay away from Java, too. Java 7 GA: July 2011. Java 7 EOL: April 2015. That's not even 4 years. > The Scala team has further caused optic issues here by using what appears to be a semantic version number but in no way shape or form following semantic versioning procedures around compatibility breaking changes. Yes, I agree. I have suggested changing this multiple times, so that the HN peanut gallery isn't intellectually overwhelmed with the epoch.major.minor.patch scheme anymore. > Further bringing Java 1.4 into this is really problematic as it is past the 10 year mark on age and will run just fine with nearly any Java project right now. You could also run old Scala code on a current JVM. _But_ you can also deploy current Scala to a 10 year old JVM, which is not possible with Java.

kasey_junk 12y ago
"Then enterprises should probably stay away from Java, too. Java 7 GA: July 2011. Java 7 EOL: April 2015. That's not even 4 years. " You are being either extremely confused or employing a pretty smarmy rhetorical tactic by equating what the thread was about, source compatibility, and jvm support lifetimes. "I have suggested changing this multiple times, so that the HN peanut gallery isn't intellectually overwhelmed with the epoch.major.minor.patch scheme anymore." Here you further degrade your argument by: 1) debasing the people who are arguing against you, people who have used and are using Scala currently and historically, just because they have issues with your pet language and 2) belittling the actual issue with using a semantic version number without using semantic version scheme. Some of the high level complaints about Scala include that they don't follow industry standards, that they show a lack of industry experience, that there is no idiomatic Scala way for newcomers to adopt. All of those are in evidence with the way they handle compatibility and versioning. It's not a reason in and of itself to give up on the language, but it is a damning problem that many people have run into many times. Scala is getting better at this but they have traditionally been abysmal so that is small comfort. "You could also run old Scala code on a current JVM. _But_ you can also deploy current Scala to a 10 year old JVM, which is not possible with Java." Once again you are either intentionally changing the goal posts, or are showing extreme ignorance. We were talking about source compatibility. You can count on 1 hand the number of source compatibility issues you will run into with a 1.4 code base and a modern jdk. Even turning on deprecations will leave you with a very small amount of changes that need to be done. This is an extremely valuable property for some projects. Instead of trying to argue poorly against this benefit with bad rhetorical techniques, why don't you just admit what the rest of us know. Java made compatibility a huge priority. That it is a huge priority causes many many issues with the language. For many projects those issues make other languages more appropriate, but for others it is a huge boon. Scala simply made different trade offs, which make it more appropriate for some projects and less appropriate for others. I am a Scala developer currently and hope they don't try to emulate the compatibility model of the Java world because the kinds of projects I work on are better served without it. But I completely agree with pron when it comes to dismissing it as suitable for a large project with long time horizons. Finally, another thing I have to fight as a Scala developer in discussing it's suitability is a perception that the Scala community is overrun with zealots who dismiss real industry concerns at the altar of cutting edge features. I think that is a real but overblown concern, but you are displaying all the hallmarks of that caricature. You are making my job harder. Please stop.
- frowaway001 12y ago
  Well, if this whining is what you get when a language seems to have some industry appeal, I think I need to work a lot harder to get rid of these people. You have plenty of language design disasters to choose from if you want to have a language which cares about "industry concerns". Even in Scala, the most painful warts and horrible "features" exist because of "industry requirements". I could live without all those crazy conversions from Strings and numbers for instance. Or all that crazy stuff necessary to support Java's idea of Generics. Listening to the industry is exactly the reason why criminals can own machines by sending a web request with a bash function embedded in a bash variable to a remote server somewhere. In. 2014. Until "industry" gets their shit together, their opinions are more than worthless.
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    So I'm glad we agree that Scala is not a good fit for many projects. No maybe you can stop arguing that it is fine for any project under the sun every time the topic comes up.

kasey_junk 12y ago

"Then enterprises should probably stay away from Java, too. Java 7 GA: July 2011. Java 7 EOL: April 2015. That's not even 4 years. " You are being either extremely confused or employing a pretty smarmy rhetorical tactic by equating what the thread was about, source compatibility, and jvm support lifetimes. "I have suggested changing this multiple times, so that the HN peanut gallery isn't intellectually overwhelmed with the epoch.major.minor.patch scheme anymore." Here you further degrade your argument by: 1) debasing the people who are arguing against you, people who have used and are using Scala currently and historically, just because they have issues with your pet language and 2) belittling the actual issue with using a semantic version number without using semantic version scheme. Some of the high level complaints about Scala include that they don't follow industry standards, that they show a lack of industry experience, that there is no idiomatic Scala way for newcomers to adopt. All of those are in evidence with the way they handle compatibility and versioning. It's not a reason in and of itself to give up on the language, but it is a damning problem that many people have run into many times. Scala is getting better at this but they have traditionally been abysmal so that is small comfort. "You could also run old Scala code on a current JVM. _But_ you can also deploy current Scala to a 10 year old JVM, which is not possible with Java." Once again you are either intentionally changing the goal posts, or are showing extreme ignorance. We were talking about source compatibility. You can count on 1 hand the number of source compatibility issues you will run into with a 1.4 code base and a modern jdk. Even turning on deprecations will leave you with a very small amount of changes that need to be done. This is an extremely valuable property for some projects. Instead of trying to argue poorly against this benefit with bad rhetorical techniques, why don't you just admit what the rest of us know. Java made compatibility a huge priority. That it is a huge priority causes many many issues with the language. For many projects those issues make other languages more appropriate, but for others it is a huge boon. Scala simply made different trade offs, which make it more appropriate for some projects and less appropriate for others. I am a Scala developer currently and hope they don't try to emulate the compatibility model of the Java world because the kinds of projects I work on are better served without it. But I completely agree with pron when it comes to dismissing it as suitable for a large project with long time horizons. Finally, another thing I have to fight as a Scala developer in discussing it's suitability is a perception that the Scala community is overrun with zealots who dismiss real industry concerns at the altar of cutting edge features. I think that is a real but overblown concern, but you are displaying all the hallmarks of that caricature. You are making my job harder. Please stop.

frowaway001 12y ago
Well, if this whining is what you get when a language seems to have some industry appeal, I think I need to work a lot harder to get rid of these people. You have plenty of language design disasters to choose from if you want to have a language which cares about "industry concerns". Even in Scala, the most painful warts and horrible "features" exist because of "industry requirements". I could live without all those crazy conversions from Strings and numbers for instance. Or all that crazy stuff necessary to support Java's idea of Generics. Listening to the industry is exactly the reason why criminals can own machines by sending a web request with a bash function embedded in a bash variable to a remote server somewhere. In. 2014. Until "industry" gets their shit together, their opinions are more than worthless.
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  So I'm glad we agree that Scala is not a good fit for many projects. No maybe you can stop arguing that it is fine for any project under the sun every time the topic comes up.