3 ms·

So if you scroll down, you'll find my tentative evaluation of Scala's support for constructors. I have not found anything of interest there. Indeed, if my under

So if you scroll down, you'll find my tentative evaluation of Scala's support for constructors. I have not found anything of interest there. Indeed, if my understanding is correct, constructors in Scala have extremely limited capabilities, since all initialization ultimately flows through the primary constructor which is responsible for initializing all fields. In Ceylon we obviously had a more ambitious set of requirements.

duaneb 11y ago
> Indeed, if my understanding is correct, constructors in Scala have extremely limited capabilities Is this not desirable? The wider the definition of a constructor is, the less you can determine from looking at the construction of a resource/variable/whatever. When you delve into e.g. the creation of an ORM this becomes extremely important because it has to reason about data constraints across multiple initializations.
- gavinking 11y ago
  Wait, wait, wait: just two hours ago you were demanding that I give credit to Scala for the design of constructors in Ceylon. And you accused me of quote "just tweaking of the language's constructor patterns and calling it novel". It seems that you now accept that in fact the two designs are dissimilar, and that Ceylon's is significantly more powerful. So, before continuing this discussion, do you think it would appropriate to start by apologizing to my team? Just so we don't get off on the wrong foot?
  - duaneb 11y ago
    > just two hours ago you were demanding that I give credit to Scala for the design of constructors in Ceylon. No, I demanded you reference a similar language to actually compare the benefits of your changes. If you do, I suspect you'll find you gain virtually nothing.
    - gavinking 11y ago
      You wrote: > Much of the rest of the work seems to mirror what Scala did several years ago, and this seems to nearly replicate that. I have already demolished this claim on this thread, as you very well understand. I personally make it a policy to admit error when I err. It's up to you to decide whether this is also your policy, or whether you prefer goalpost-shifting and prevarication. > No, I demanded you reference a similar language to actually compare the benefits of your changes. I make it a firm policy to not talk about other new languages when I blog about Ceylon, because whenever I have mentioned Scala in the past, even just in passing, I have found myself the subject of quite vicious personal attacks. I'm going to continue with that policy, this thread notwithstanding. But thanks for your feedback anyway.
      - duaneb 11y ago
        > I make it a firm policy to not talk about other new languages when I blog about Ceylon, because whenever I have mentioned Scala in the past, even just in passing, I have found myself the subject of quite vicious personal attacks. I'm sorry to hear that. That's certainly not a productive way to have a conversation, though, and it's rather confusing you'd try to argue for the benefits of your hard work without making them in terms of languages people actually use.

duaneb 11y ago

> Indeed, if my understanding is correct, constructors in Scala have extremely limited capabilities Is this not desirable? The wider the definition of a constructor is, the less you can determine from looking at the construction of a resource/variable/whatever. When you delve into e.g. the creation of an ORM this becomes extremely important because it has to reason about data constraints across multiple initializations.

gavinking 11y ago
Wait, wait, wait: just two hours ago you were demanding that I give credit to Scala for the design of constructors in Ceylon. And you accused me of quote "just tweaking of the language's constructor patterns and calling it novel". It seems that you now accept that in fact the two designs are dissimilar, and that Ceylon's is significantly more powerful. So, before continuing this discussion, do you think it would appropriate to start by apologizing to my team? Just so we don't get off on the wrong foot?
- duaneb 11y ago
  > just two hours ago you were demanding that I give credit to Scala for the design of constructors in Ceylon. No, I demanded you reference a similar language to actually compare the benefits of your changes. If you do, I suspect you'll find you gain virtually nothing.
  - gavinking 11y ago
    You wrote: > Much of the rest of the work seems to mirror what Scala did several years ago, and this seems to nearly replicate that. I have already demolished this claim on this thread, as you very well understand. I personally make it a policy to admit error when I err. It's up to you to decide whether this is also your policy, or whether you prefer goalpost-shifting and prevarication. > No, I demanded you reference a similar language to actually compare the benefits of your changes. I make it a firm policy to not talk about other new languages when I blog about Ceylon, because whenever I have mentioned Scala in the past, even just in passing, I have found myself the subject of quite vicious personal attacks. I'm going to continue with that policy, this thread notwithstanding. But thanks for your feedback anyway.
    - duaneb 11y ago
      > I make it a firm policy to not talk about other new languages when I blog about Ceylon, because whenever I have mentioned Scala in the past, even just in passing, I have found myself the subject of quite vicious personal attacks. I'm sorry to hear that. That's certainly not a productive way to have a conversation, though, and it's rather confusing you'd try to argue for the benefits of your hard work without making them in terms of languages people actually use.