frowaway001

78 ms·

1. 151.▲
   by frowaway001 12y ago

   > We need a scala minus implicits. I don't find the idea of programming without typeclasses appealing – at all.
2. 152.▲
   by frowaway001 12y ago

   So you are recommending to create a special case just for declarations in local scope? So "var" in global places means "variable", but "var" in local places means "variable or value"?
3. 153.▲
   by frowaway001 12y ago

   > It's easy for a parser or a person to scan the local scope and see if a variable is ever possibly mutated or not. "what the parser figured out" != "what the author intended" > this is a straightforward synta
4. 154.▲
   by frowaway001 12y ago

   Fantom: Typesystem is unsound, far away from correctness, only hard-coded Generics, many basic things are not expressions, like if-then-else or try-catch. Ceylon: if-then-else or try-catch are no expressions, embraces null, unstable softwar
5. 155.▲
   by frowaway001 12y ago

   > are you actually gaining anything from the OOP qualities of that language Yes. > Could you perhaps achieve the same thing, more easily, using a language that is fundamentally “functional”, rather than object oriented? No. (That was
6. 156.▲
   by frowaway001 12y ago

   > Also, core.typed can do things that java can not. Isn't that a very low bar? > Clojure has types, but not static typing. Types are – by definition – static.
7. 157.▲
   by frowaway001 12y ago

   (defalias AnyMonad "A monad with bind, result, and optionally zero and plus." (TFn [[m :< (TFn [[x :variance :covariant]] Any)]] '{:m-bind (All [x y] [(m x) [x -> (m y)] -> (m y)
8. 158.▲
   by frowaway001 12y ago

   > The article shows some examples where you can choose between regular brackets or curly brackets. There's a lot of different ways to say the exact same thing. Why? Which is best? Are there any cases where one works but the other do
9. 159.▲
   by frowaway001 12y ago

   Some people are worth talking to, others are not.
10. 160.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    Yes. It's routinely done.
11. 161.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    There are valid complaints about Scala, but the complaints from all those HN armchair experts are far removed from it. There is nothing useful to be done except making fun of it.
12. 162.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    Not all opinions are equal.
13. 163.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    Reliability, performance, maturity, instrumentation, diagnostics. Just picking one example from the list, performance: How is GHC's runtime dealing with 100GB+ heaps?
14. 164.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    So which ones would you remove, and why? Additionally, you could just define which style you want let the IDE enforce it (or on check in).
15. 165.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    > horrendous type system and the confused parts of the syntax Could you expand on that a bit? In my experience, Scala is one of the few languages which don't fight against everything you want to express in a typesafe way. Also, I fi
16. 166.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    Just ignore him, he's a troll. The worst thing about Scala seems to be that the community always have to deal with a single nutjob on Jihad, first Harrop, then Colebourne, then Beust, now that guy.
17. 167.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    > case class has 22 Works fine for me: scala> case class Foo(a1: Int, a2: Int, a3: Int, a4: Int, a5: Int, a6: Int, a7: Int, a8: Int, a9: Int, a10: Int, a11: Int, a12: Int,
18. 168.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    > Clojure is much, much less complex then Scala and it is functional and OO. Yes, but it doesn't even have types! (Except clojure-typed, which is so cumbersome and verbose that it's faster to just write Java.)
19. 169.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    > I’ve notified both Yahoo! and the FBI New Orleans field office of the infiltration And the feds are standing at his front door in 3 .. 2 .. 1.
20. 170.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    Oh, hi Violet!
21. 171.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    > Every language sucks. Every language [bla] Oh, another instance of "all languages are equal". No they are not. Some are better, some are worse. People who don't want to use JavaScript, try to avoid one of the worst langu
22. 172.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    >> [...] most languages with good generics support barely have type hierarchies [...] > Don't C# and java(sic) both have generics and type heirarchies(sic)? Do you have an issue with understanding the meaning of the word &quot
23. 173.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    This is so wrong, that I kind of start thinking you never even touched the language.
24. 174.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    Well, if this whining is what you get when a language seems to have some industry appeal, I think I need to work a lot harder to get rid of these people. You have plenty of language design disasters to choose from if you want to have a lang
25. 175.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    Like what? Generics?
26. 176.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    This is not about disagreement. You keep making huge claims and sweeping generalizations based on a completely irrelevant version of Scala ("a few years ago" == "not a version which would give any useful information to judge
27. 177.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    > counter-example That's not a counter-example (necessary vs. sufficient).
28. 178.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    > A 5 year old release is not prehistoric when you are thinking of building a system for the long term that will be very big. Then enterprises should probably stay away from Java, too. Java 7 GA: July 2011. Java 7 EOL: April 2015.
29. 179.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search?q=java&submit=Search&sor... Results 1 - 10 of 119,620 What's your point again?
30. 180.▲
    by frowaway001 12y ago

    > It's 100% interop ensures that you can only implement bits and pieces in Kotlin, not necessarily the entire app. As long as Kotlin is not identical to javac, there is and never will be 100% interop. > Scala has got more things