3 ms·

Name the "uncanny" similarities please. If you can't, I might think you're trolling. To be fair, it's nice to see you acknowledge that there are "obviously som

Name the "uncanny" similarities please. If you can't, I might think you're trolling. To be fair, it's nice to see you acknowledge that there are "obviously some differences". Some tiny little subtle differences like how in Ceylon, I can actually have two constructors that both initialize an immutable field. Like how constructor resolution is by (unambiguous) name and not by (potentially ambiguous) overloaded parameter types. Like how different constructors can delegate to distinct constructors of the superclass. 'Cos, y'know, other than that, it's really just a copy of Scala. Absurd.

jules 11y ago
I assumed duaneb was referring to the whole idea of giving parameters to the class definition.
- gavinking 11y ago
  Wait, you're not talking about constructors here. You're talking about the idea of giving a class a parameter list? A feature that I independently came up with about 7 years ago, before I - or most other people - had even heard of Scala? And then implemented 5 years ago as one of like the very earliest features in the Ceylon type checker? And which is not actually the topic of the linked blog post? You're calling me out for copying that?! Man, seriously, there is such a thing as two people coming up with the same good idea independently. If you can't imagine such a thing happening, I'm at a total loss.
  - jules 11y ago
    Certainly, it happens all the time. Leibniz and Newton invented calculus at the same time. Scala is 12 years old though, and it's rare for a language designer to not be aware of the main competitor in the same space, which is probably why people assumed that you were aware of Scala. Note that I personally couldn't care less who invented what, I just wrote what I thought duaneb and stephen were getting at to clear up the confusion since you said "I guess I don't understand what you're saying here."
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - duaneb 11y ago
    I think in this thread you're conflating taking credit with mentioning, which are two very, very different concepts. I would not expect you to give credit, but I would expect you to mention relevant competing technologies for a compare and contrast. :)
    - gavinking 11y ago
      If you look above in this subthread you'll see the following comment: > I think what they're saying is that it's good to give credit where credit is due. I don't think I was conflating. Or at least, if I misinterpreted, then so did at least one other person. Which suggests that the original comments were very open to such an interpretation.

jules 11y ago

I assumed duaneb was referring to the whole idea of giving parameters to the class definition.

gavinking 11y ago
Wait, you're not talking about constructors here. You're talking about the idea of giving a class a parameter list? A feature that I independently came up with about 7 years ago, before I - or most other people - had even heard of Scala? And then implemented 5 years ago as one of like the very earliest features in the Ceylon type checker? And which is not actually the topic of the linked blog post? You're calling me out for copying that?! Man, seriously, there is such a thing as two people coming up with the same good idea independently. If you can't imagine such a thing happening, I'm at a total loss.
- jules 11y ago
  Certainly, it happens all the time. Leibniz and Newton invented calculus at the same time. Scala is 12 years old though, and it's rare for a language designer to not be aware of the main competitor in the same space, which is probably why people assumed that you were aware of Scala. Note that I personally couldn't care less who invented what, I just wrote what I thought duaneb and stephen were getting at to clear up the confusion since you said "I guess I don't understand what you're saying here."
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- duaneb 11y ago
  I think in this thread you're conflating taking credit with mentioning, which are two very, very different concepts. I would not expect you to give credit, but I would expect you to mention relevant competing technologies for a compare and contrast. :)
  - gavinking 11y ago
    If you look above in this subthread you'll see the following comment: > I think what they're saying is that it's good to give credit where credit is due. I don't think I was conflating. Or at least, if I misinterpreted, then so did at least one other person. Which suggests that the original comments were very open to such an interpretation.