5 ms·

Yeah, OK, I just had a quick look, and Scala constructors seem to have almost nothing in common with the design I outline in this blog, other than being, well,

Yeah, OK, I just had a quick look, and Scala constructors seem to have almost nothing in common with the design I outline in this blog, other than being, well, constructors. Perhaps you didn't read the linked article?

perneto 11y ago
Could you outline the differences between Scala and Ceylon constructors, for readers not familiar with both?
- gavinking 11y ago
  Yes of course. I'm at the gym right now, so give me a chance to get home, read up on Scala so I can be sure I'm not saying anything wrong, and then I'll reply. Is that OK?
  - perneto 11y ago
    Of course! No need to rush.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    Please look at "case classes" and their associated constructors, which is where I see the most similarity. I am sure they are implemented very differently, but I am not sure exactly what the benefits of ceylon might be over a more "cluttered" scala-style approach built on top of java class-and-interface MRO.
    - gavinking 11y ago
      The equivalent of Scala's case classes is an enumerated class with an "of" clause. Constructors aren't really relevant here, AFAICT.
- gavinking 11y ago
  OK, so, here’s a tentative list of similarities / differences. Please correct me if I've made a mistake. Similarities: - Scala has the notion of a “primary” constructor vs “auxiliary” constructor, which at first looks sorta superficially similar to the notion of a “default” vs “named" constructor in Ceylon. - Both Ceylon and Scala (and Java, and C++, and C#, etc) have a notion of delegation between constructors. Differences: - In Scala, constructors are overloaded, that is, they are distinguished by the types of their parameters. In Ceylon, they have distinct names, and are distinguished by name. - In Scala, every auxiliary constructor of a class must ultimately delegate to the primary constructor. In Ceylon, there is is no such restriction. Any constructor may delegate directly to the superclass. Given this, I can't see how it's possible for two constructors of a Scala class to delegate to different constructors of the superclass. That's possible in Ceylon. - In Scala I could not find any way to assign to an immutable member (val) from an auxiliary constructor. At first I thought that this could not possibly be a real limitation, but, checking stack overflow, it seems that it is. Auxiliary constructors can only assign to vars? Really?! - In Ceylon, initialization flows from the top of the class body to the bottom, allowing. In Scala it jumps around: all statements of the primary constructor are executed, even statements that occur after the auxiliary constructors, and then the auxiliary constructors. - Ceylon has the notion of a partial constructor which partially initializes the class, but may only be called by other constructors. Scala doesn’t seem to have this concept. Indeed, the primary constructor must initialize all fields. And, if I understand correctly, the only thing that auxiliary constructors are allowed to do is mess with mutable members and perform side-effects. (Of course, it’s a bad practice to make constructors side-effecty.) - Ceylon has the notion of a value constructor. I have not yet found anything like that in Scala. - Taking a reference to a constructor and treating it as a function seems to be quite uncomfortable in Scala. In Ceylon it's very natural. Also Scala sometimes seems to demand the use of the "new" operator in instantiation expressions, though I'm not clear why that's a requirement. My bottom line conclusion is that constructors in Scala are much less powerful than I had imagined they would be, and, it seems, much less powerful than constructors in Ceylon. Of course, some of what I’ve written here could be incorrect, since I’m not a Scala programmer. If so, I’m hoping someone will correct me. Anyway, I definitely haven’t found anything in Scala constructors that we should have reproduced in Ceylon. Can someone else find something?

perneto 11y ago

Could you outline the differences between Scala and Ceylon constructors, for readers not familiar with both?

gavinking 11y ago
Yes of course. I'm at the gym right now, so give me a chance to get home, read up on Scala so I can be sure I'm not saying anything wrong, and then I'll reply. Is that OK?
- perneto 11y ago
  Of course! No need to rush.
- duaneb 11y ago
  Please look at "case classes" and their associated constructors, which is where I see the most similarity. I am sure they are implemented very differently, but I am not sure exactly what the benefits of ceylon might be over a more "cluttered" scala-style approach built on top of java class-and-interface MRO.
  - gavinking 11y ago
    The equivalent of Scala's case classes is an enumerated class with an "of" clause. Constructors aren't really relevant here, AFAICT.
gavinking 11y ago
OK, so, here’s a tentative list of similarities / differences. Please correct me if I've made a mistake. Similarities: - Scala has the notion of a “primary” constructor vs “auxiliary” constructor, which at first looks sorta superficially similar to the notion of a “default” vs “named" constructor in Ceylon. - Both Ceylon and Scala (and Java, and C++, and C#, etc) have a notion of delegation between constructors. Differences: - In Scala, constructors are overloaded, that is, they are distinguished by the types of their parameters. In Ceylon, they have distinct names, and are distinguished by name. - In Scala, every auxiliary constructor of a class must ultimately delegate to the primary constructor. In Ceylon, there is is no such restriction. Any constructor may delegate directly to the superclass. Given this, I can't see how it's possible for two constructors of a Scala class to delegate to different constructors of the superclass. That's possible in Ceylon. - In Scala I could not find any way to assign to an immutable member (val) from an auxiliary constructor. At first I thought that this could not possibly be a real limitation, but, checking stack overflow, it seems that it is. Auxiliary constructors can only assign to vars? Really?! - In Ceylon, initialization flows from the top of the class body to the bottom, allowing. In Scala it jumps around: all statements of the primary constructor are executed, even statements that occur after the auxiliary constructors, and then the auxiliary constructors. - Ceylon has the notion of a partial constructor which partially initializes the class, but may only be called by other constructors. Scala doesn’t seem to have this concept. Indeed, the primary constructor must initialize all fields. And, if I understand correctly, the only thing that auxiliary constructors are allowed to do is mess with mutable members and perform side-effects. (Of course, it’s a bad practice to make constructors side-effecty.) - Ceylon has the notion of a value constructor. I have not yet found anything like that in Scala. - Taking a reference to a constructor and treating it as a function seems to be quite uncomfortable in Scala. In Ceylon it's very natural. Also Scala sometimes seems to demand the use of the "new" operator in instantiation expressions, though I'm not clear why that's a requirement. My bottom line conclusion is that constructors in Scala are much less powerful than I had imagined they would be, and, it seems, much less powerful than constructors in Ceylon. Of course, some of what I’ve written here could be incorrect, since I’m not a Scala programmer. If so, I’m hoping someone will correct me. Anyway, I definitely haven’t found anything in Scala constructors that we should have reproduced in Ceylon. Can someone else find something?