justthistime_

30 ms·

91.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Seriously? The same people who couldn't maintain their fork of Unity are now writing their own home-grown runtime, complete with their own garbage collector. I don't see a chance of this working out "well" for any sane o
92.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Dude, relax?
93.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
With .NET Core, is there any reason to not just drop IL2CPP completely? (The whole thing only existed in the first place because they are stuck on a completely outdated Mono version, due to Xamarin changing the license of newer Mono version
94.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
> Scala pretends to solve this problem by "layering" code. From my perspective that's the large difference between Java and Scala. In Java, complexity leaks into the use-site (especially with Generics), in Scala it's
95.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Isn't that all basic stuff SBT did for years already?
96.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
the things we can do with union and intersection types, disjointness, abstraction over tuple and function types, etc, are just beautifully elegant and powerful. Don't let the fact that you love Scala blind you to other id
97.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Ceylon and Kotlin are two languages who did this (both instanceOf/cast and instance creation).
98.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
A language designer which doesn't want to give credit where credit is due I'm still waiting for you to retract that, now that I've conclusively demonstrated that Ceylon's constructors are totally diff
99.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Constructors are not "static". Constructors access the members of the class. That doesn't mean that they are not "static". Yes, they sit in a weird middle-ground, but fact is that constructors are called on
100.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Things that are discouraged don't receive the language's nicest syntax. (Secondary) constructors are discouraged.
101.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Looks like you are missing the point completely with your focus on Scala constructors: Less is more. Nobody needs or wants the mess of Java-style initialization Ceylon tries to replicate. Ceylon has the notion of a value constructor.
102.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
The whole idea of "let's encourage people to litter their classes with convenience constructors" is bad. Constructors are the odd things which act like static methods, but have access to the fields of the instance-to-be-creat
103.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Not sure what scares me more: A language designer which doesn't want to give credit where credit is due, or a language who really didn't do his research. Too bad that Ceylon/Dart still haven't caught up with the state of
104.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Too bad it is Apple-only.
105.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
I think we definitely found the Common Lisper.
106.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Stuff like this is why many developers don't take Go people serious anymore.
107.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
There are plenty of people out there which didn't manage or didn't need to advance beyond their first-year experience for the last ten years. "What did X do?" is a much better question than "How long did X do it?&qu
108.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
I think people who use Go in the first place are not those who think much about "can this be done in a better way?". It's quite similar to the notion of "I'm a PHP developer and I don't understand why everyone
109.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Yeah. Go. The concurrent language with a single, mutable, thread-unsafe dictionary implementation.
110.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
I think that no-one will argue that an imperative, transient data-structure will be faster than a functional, persistent data-structure if you use it imperatively. If you use persistent data-structures the way they are meant to be used, the
111.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
> Like I feel a bit sad for Scala having native XML. In what sense?
112.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
> up-to-date docs Which parts are out-of-date? > and bundled ORM Didn't they just go the other way, de-bundling all persistence APIs/libs? What's wrong with just picking the one that's right for your use-case and u
113.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Considering how butt-hurt these PU guys are over Scala, it seems to be unlikely.
114.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
I wouldn't say "further along". Deciding to not tackle any medium-to-hard problems just allowed them to be finished far earlier with their language.
115.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
No, I'm right. I didn't think of James Strachan. (He by the way stopped contributing to Kotlin around October 2012. You're welcome.)
116.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
People are still asking for examples, not for some popularity vote on feelings. (Also, the designer of one of the languages mentioned was completely unaware of Scala when he created his own.)
117.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
So what _is_ your criticism? The grammar of the language has no relationship with compilation speed. What did they "tack on way too much, too soon"?
118.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Most of the time is spent in the typechecker.
119.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Plus, the ParallelUniverse guy keeps trying to spread FUD about Scala in pretty much every Java/Scala/whatever thread.
120.
by justthistime_ 11y ago
Account-created-2-hours-ago, did you ever use Scala, or are you just trying to troll (badly)? :-) Edit: Oh, right. After reading your other comments, it's obvious that you haven't used Scala.

More ›