4 ms·

With all due respect to/admiration for Scala, I would not want it anywhere near safety critical systems, simply because there has not been a lot of code written

by scscsc 17y ago

With all due respect to/admiration for Scala, I would not want it anywhere near safety critical systems, simply because there has not been a lot of code written in it. There are essentially two ways we learn to trust stuff. Either (a) we have it (formally) proved (no one reasonable doubts 1 + 1 = 2) or (b) we rely on tons of everyday experience to note that it doesn't fail (we mostly trust our cars). Scala has neither. I would not be surprised if the compiler contained serious bugs.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
You make my point. Many programmers only have experience of web applications or services, and complain that some dinosaurs insist on 20-year-old languages. My point is that there are fields in which this convservatism is the correct attitude, and that programmers who point the finger and laugh at such out-dated thinking lack experience. I work in a field that requires fewer bugs than most (although it's not as severe as ATC), and we don't have much choice about the languages we use.
- eru 17y ago
  > that some dinosaurs insist on 20-year-old languages That would not be so much of a problem. Scheme is certainly older than 20 years, now. Python comes close.
  - geocar 17y ago
    Not exactly the same thing. The R3RS that existed in 1989 lacked macros, had t and nil, and even allowed implementations to "call" strings. Even ten years ago, Python, as it existed in 1999 was a very different language than it is today. Moreover, Python and scheme implementations have code that "worked" only a few years ago that fails to run on the current version of the interpreters, while gcc still happily recompiles my pre-ansi C just fine.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
    >> that some dinosaurs insist on 20-year-old languages > That would not be so much of a problem. Scheme is > certainly older than 20 years, now. Python comes close. I can't tell if you're misunderstanding things deliberately - certainly your profile and history suggest that you're not a troll. The point isn't about age, it's about the popularity and maturity of the language, and through them, the acceptability. But I'm pretty sure you knew that, so maybe I'm missing something deeper in your comment.
    - eru 17y ago
      Sorry, I was being too laconic for my own good. I meant, the age isn't the problem. (Even if Scheme and Python aren't old enough, Common Lisp and some version of ML might be.) As you say, it is about the `mainstreamness' of the language. Insert: >> That would not be so much of a problem. [But there are other problems.]

by scscsc 17y ago

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago

You make my point. Many programmers only have experience of web applications or services, and complain that some dinosaurs insist on 20-year-old languages. My point is that there are fields in which this convservatism is the correct attitude, and that programmers who point the finger and laugh at such out-dated thinking lack experience. I work in a field that requires fewer bugs than most (although it's not as severe as ATC), and we don't have much choice about the languages we use.

eru 17y ago
> that some dinosaurs insist on 20-year-old languages That would not be so much of a problem. Scheme is certainly older than 20 years, now. Python comes close.
- geocar 17y ago
  Not exactly the same thing. The R3RS that existed in 1989 lacked macros, had t and nil, and even allowed implementations to "call" strings. Even ten years ago, Python, as it existed in 1999 was a very different language than it is today. Moreover, Python and scheme implementations have code that "worked" only a few years ago that fails to run on the current version of the interpreters, while gcc still happily recompiles my pre-ansi C just fine.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
  >> that some dinosaurs insist on 20-year-old languages > That would not be so much of a problem. Scheme is > certainly older than 20 years, now. Python comes close. I can't tell if you're misunderstanding things deliberately - certainly your profile and history suggest that you're not a troll. The point isn't about age, it's about the popularity and maturity of the language, and through them, the acceptability. But I'm pretty sure you knew that, so maybe I'm missing something deeper in your comment.
  - eru 17y ago
    Sorry, I was being too laconic for my own good. I meant, the age isn't the problem. (Even if Scheme and Python aren't old enough, Common Lisp and some version of ML might be.) As you say, it is about the `mainstreamness' of the language. Insert: >> That would not be so much of a problem. [But there are other problems.]