xjru

4 ms·

1.
by xjru 14y ago
Maybe you shouldn't try so hard to deliberately misunderstand what I'm saying. Your nitpicking doesn't change the fact that you can redefine what == does in your own classes. I hope you do realise that my point isn't even specifically about
2.
by xjru 14y ago
It doesn't matter which operator you choose as an example. It's the same with a == b. And I don't agree that it's a theoretical problem that only arises with bad code. It's simply a downside that we have to be aware of when we use DSLs, eve
3.
by xjru 14y ago
I don't doubt that Scala does the things that both languages do in a cleaner, more regular way. But the kind of syntactical abstraction that Scala supports lets you replace semantics that you can't replace in Java, which creates uncertainty
4.
by xjru 14y ago
I don't deny that. What adds to complexity more than verbosity, though, is that Java's lack of abstraction facilities leads to the overuse of frameworks, including byte code manipulation and excessive reflection. At that point it can get re
5.
by xjru 14y ago
Immutability is not a language feature in Scala as it's not enforced like it is in Haskell, so you don't have any guarantees about what a piece of code doesn't do. Granted, you can make a better guess than in Java where mutability is concer
6.
by xjru 14y ago
Scala has way more language features than Java, that's for sure. It does have powerful abstractions and it makes a lot of things more elegant. You could say the same about C++ compared to C. But in both cases, sensible people can disagree o