4 ms·

>C# seems to look more like Scala with every release It does, but then that begs the question of "why use c# at all?". C# is still missing (along with F#) sca

by runT1ME 12y ago

>C# seems to look more like Scala with every release It does, but then that begs the question of "why use c# at all?". C# is still missing (along with F#) scala's most powerful features, and I prefer the JVM and openness of the ecosystem to .NET The contact I'm on, we're having a lot of success porting away a large C# application to Scala.

sunshinerag 12y ago
isn't scala just a haskell wannabe?
pjmlp 12y ago
What about because many corporations are .NET shops and Scala dropped CLR support?
- thescrewdriver 12y ago
  The reason they dropped CLR support was because there was virtually no interest in it.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    When you are a .NET shop with C++, C# and F# at your disposal why invest into Scala?
    - runT1ME 12y ago
      F# is a remarkably less powerful language than scala. Along with the cost of Visual Studio + windows licenses, the Scala/open source ecosystem is just a better choice.
      - pjmlp 12y ago
        For corporations, the cost of Visual Studio and Windows licenses is a drop of water in their ocean budget. There is enterprise software way more expensive than that.
        frowaway001 12y ago
        Corporations for which VS/Win licenses don't matter are usually exactly those which don't let developers use F#. So what's your point?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    No, I'm pretty sure the reason they dropped CLR support was that there was no good way to get a decent .NET interop story with a language with a substantially different type system than .NET assumes (particularly, with higher-kinded types) given .NETs reified generics. This is one respect in which .NET's superiority over the JVM as a platform for its core languages (C#/VB.NET on .NET vs. Java on the JVM) made it worse for flexibility. Reified generics are great for implementing languages with a C#-like-type-system, but they limit the power of the type systems you can have.
    - frowaway001 12y ago
      No.
      - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
        Your comment might be more useful if you gave a reason or an argument or some data or something...
jbergens 12y ago
You also get a step-wise path to rewrite the applications. Going to Scala would probably be a complete re-write which is risky and time consuming. I don't think Scala usage will grow much more now that Java 8 is released. The benefits of rewriting a Java application to Scala is probably not that great in comparison to the cost. And the C# to Scala re-write is probably even worse from a cost/risk perspective.
- frowaway001 12y ago
  Well, obviously other people did the math and went ahead with it. > I don't think Scala usage will grow much more now that Java 8 is released. I don't get that reasoning. As the GP mentioned, even C# projects migrate, so why would Java's more concise anonymous inner classes be a show-stopper?
- runT1ME 12y ago
  >I don't think Scala usage will grow much more now that Java 8 is released Do you think the main reason people use Scala is because of lambdas and type inference?

by runT1ME 12y ago

sunshinerag 12y ago

isn't scala just a haskell wannabe?

pjmlp 12y ago

What about because many corporations are .NET shops and Scala dropped CLR support?

thescrewdriver 12y ago
The reason they dropped CLR support was because there was virtually no interest in it.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  When you are a .NET shop with C++, C# and F# at your disposal why invest into Scala?
  - runT1ME 12y ago
    F# is a remarkably less powerful language than scala. Along with the cost of Visual Studio + windows licenses, the Scala/open source ecosystem is just a better choice.
    - pjmlp 12y ago
      For corporations, the cost of Visual Studio and Windows licenses is a drop of water in their ocean budget. There is enterprise software way more expensive than that.
      - frowaway001 12y ago
        Corporations for which VS/Win licenses don't matter are usually exactly those which don't let developers use F#. So what's your point?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  No, I'm pretty sure the reason they dropped CLR support was that there was no good way to get a decent .NET interop story with a language with a substantially different type system than .NET assumes (particularly, with higher-kinded types) given .NETs reified generics. This is one respect in which .NET's superiority over the JVM as a platform for its core languages (C#/VB.NET on .NET vs. Java on the JVM) made it worse for flexibility. Reified generics are great for implementing languages with a C#-like-type-system, but they limit the power of the type systems you can have.
  - frowaway001 12y ago
    No.
    - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
      Your comment might be more useful if you gave a reason or an argument or some data or something...

jbergens 12y ago

You also get a step-wise path to rewrite the applications. Going to Scala would probably be a complete re-write which is risky and time consuming. I don't think Scala usage will grow much more now that Java 8 is released. The benefits of rewriting a Java application to Scala is probably not that great in comparison to the cost. And the C# to Scala re-write is probably even worse from a cost/risk perspective.

frowaway001 12y ago
Well, obviously other people did the math and went ahead with it. > I don't think Scala usage will grow much more now that Java 8 is released. I don't get that reasoning. As the GP mentioned, even C# projects migrate, so why would Java's more concise anonymous inner classes be a show-stopper?
runT1ME 12y ago
>I don't think Scala usage will grow much more now that Java 8 is released Do you think the main reason people use Scala is because of lambdas and type inference?