happy_dino

18 ms·

121.
by happy_dino 14y ago
Sadly, the mailing list debates often don't contain much more than linking to this article and repeating unsubstantiated claims. The points brought up in the comment section below the article were not answered at all. Russ Cox: “I would be
122.
by happy_dino 14y ago
I'm wondering how long it will take until people will either stop linking to blatantly false articles or start reading more than the first 5 paragraphs of it.
123.
by happy_dino 14y ago
I think that asks for some further explanation, considering that Go even ships with hard-coded, built-in “generic” data-structures and the topic comes up pretty much every other week on the mailing list.
124.
by happy_dino 14y ago
Having gained experience with both, I can happily declare Java 8 to be finally more complex than Scala.
125.
by happy_dino 14y ago
Have a look at http://oss.readytalk.com/avian/ .
126.
by happy_dino 14y ago
Support for tail calls pretty much depends on the actual runtime implementation. If it is important to you (it certainly is to me), use an implementation which supports proper tail calls. I'm doing it and I have never looked back.
127.
by happy_dino 14y ago
I wouldn't say that. Not typed, not really functional and mutability everywhere.
128.
by happy_dino 14y ago
Sure, except in talent and thought leaders.
129.
by happy_dino 14y ago
Even if you know both “paradigms”, Scala's incredibly well-done fusion of those concepts is what makes the language interesting, imho. You can learn FP and OOP everywhere, but which language combines FP and OOP in such a seamless a way Scal
130.
by happy_dino 14y ago
> Now you're just making things up. http://skillsmatter.com/podcast/home/expert-panel-discussion...
131.
by happy_dino 14y ago
> F# actually have significant percentages of uptake because they're actually supported by Microsoft. Scala, Clojure, etc.... are just miniscule blips on the radar in comparison. I think that's pretty much wrong. Despite Microsoft shipp
132.
by happy_dino 14y ago
I'd say this is largely a non-problem. If you already know F#, then Scala is a much simpler, more consistent language. In a way, Scala seems to be a refined, better designed version of F#. For instance, F# has support for functional and obj
133.
by happy_dino 14y ago
I wouldn't call something "fully statically typed" when most abstractions can only be implemented by casting from and to the top type. There is a reason why no one wants to use Java 1.4 anymore. Go's "static typing" is next to useless.
134.
by happy_dino 14y ago
> and Scala doesn't seem like an option Care to explain why?
135.
by happy_dino 14y ago
It's funny that you keep picking blatantly wrong examples. scala> def ==(a: Any) = false <console>:7: error: overriding method == in class Any of type (x$1: Any)Boolean; method == cannot override final member
136.
by happy_dino 14y ago
In general, that's nonsense. There are certainly languages which are comparatively close, so that it is hard to tell, and where different weightings can lead to different results. That doesn't mean it is like this for every comparison. For
137.
by happy_dino 14y ago
You don't like someone's experience and claim that people who agree are basically paid by Typesafe? Great way to debate. FYI: I don't work at Typesafe, and I share his experience. One great thing about Scala is that one can immediately tell
138.
by happy_dino 14y ago
Irony. That's Java.
139.
by happy_dino 14y ago
> Scala has way more language features than Java I wouldn't say that. I think the main difference is that Scala spent its language design budget on more useful things compared to Java. Have a look at C# if you want to see a language wit
140.
by happy_dino 14y ago
> Java comes with cheap programmers, some of the best tools in the world, reliability, and speed. You realize that none of your points are actually related to the language itself? Yes, Scala's syntax is ugly, just look at this cryptic o
141.
by happy_dino 14y ago
Just like a CPU, the design of the language was informed by the experience gained and the lessons learned when analysing/building its predecessors. The analogy is perfectly fine imho.
142.
by happy_dino 14y ago
And what's your actual point now, except trying to disagree?
143.
by happy_dino 14y ago
I really can't imagine how that is supposed to be even remotely controversial. That's probably as controversial as saying that a $200-CPU built in 2013 is faster than a CPU in 1993. Isn't that just repeating the “all languages are equal”-my
144.
by happy_dino 14y ago
> Indeed, you can end up with an indeterminate state. No. I think that claim is hysterically funny considering that Go developers almost never check all FOUR states of Go's style of error handling. The problem Go is solving here wouldn'
145.
by happy_dino 14y ago
Interesting article which asks the right questions. These days, nobody should need to use Java to reap the JVM platform's benefits.
146.
by happy_dino 14y ago
> However having a language that combines this Scala feature with Go's exception-free error handling, would be awesome and a true solution that would make software run more reliable and with less crashes. Do you realize that this is act