Talk:Scala - Revision history

Jslarochelle: Comment provided by Jslarochelle - via ArticleComments extension

Jslarochelle — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:16:16 GMT

Comment provided by Jslarochelle - via ArticleComments extension

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 14 September 2009
Line 37:		Line 37:

	--[http://www.temerev.com Alexander Temerev] 13:47, 7 September 2009 (CEST)		--[http://www.temerev.com Alexander Temerev] 13:47, 7 September 2009 (CEST)
		+	</div>
		+	== Jslarochelle said ... ==
		+
		+	<div class='commentBlock'>
		+	I also have my reservations towards Scala libraries. The use of operators worries me. I have seen a number of cases where operators were used where method names would have been better. I hope it does not get out of control.
		+
		+	--[[User:Jslarochelle\|Jslarochelle]] 19:16, 14 September 2009 (CEST)
	</div>		</div>

83.79.79.6: Comment provided by Alexander Temerev - via ArticleComments extension

83.79.79.6 — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:47:42 GMT

Comment provided by Alexander Temerev - via ArticleComments extension

←Older revision		Revision as of 11:47, 7 September 2009
Line 28:		Line 28:

	--[http://weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici Fabrizio.giudici] 13:22, 12 August 2009 (CEST)		--[http://weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici Fabrizio.giudici] 13:22, 12 August 2009 (CEST)
		+	</div>
		+	== Alexander Temerev said ... ==
		+
		+	<div class='commentBlock'>
		+	Product1..ProductN series (like its Tuple... and Function... cousins) are actually a clever trick allowing to map functional programming concepts to JVM API. Unfortunately, there is no way to define vararg-generics in JVM, so Scala API designers had to cheat. This particular cheat actually works very nice, and when I see, say, Function3[String,Int,String] datatype, I know exactly what it is.
		+
		+	Unfortunately, Scala language designers don't have a luxury of defining everything from scratch. They have to rely on underlying JVM mechanisms. And JVM compatibility is _the_ major selling point of Scala.
		+
		+	--[http://www.temerev.com Alexander Temerev] 13:47, 7 September 2009 (CEST)
	</div>		</div>

Fabrizio.giudici: Comment provided by Fabrizio.giudici - via ArticleComments extension

Fabrizio.giudici — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:22:10 GMT

Comment provided by Fabrizio.giudici - via ArticleComments extension

←Older revision		Revision as of 11:22, 12 August 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:

	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
		+	== Fabrizio.giudici said ... ==
		+
		+	<div class='commentBlock'>
		+	Re: backward compatibility, I'm with Jaroslav. People should realize that the success of a technology is given by mainstream adopters. And mainstream adopters need backward compatibility. The world is not so fast forwarding, leading egde and agile as it appears in many blogs...
		+
		+	--[http://weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici Fabrizio.giudici] 13:22, 12 August 2009 (CEST)
		+	</div>

JaroslavTulach at 08:20, 12 August 2009

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:20:22 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 08:20, 12 August 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:

	# Re.: ''some [[API]]s are ugly'' - all I want is to point out that core language [[API]]s are as important as the language itself. [[Scala]]'s core [[API]] really lack the slickness of the syntax and semantics of the language. [[Martin Odersky]] and friends shall realize that soon, before it is too late.		# Re.: ''some [[API]]s are ugly'' - all I want is to point out that core language [[API]]s are as important as the language itself. [[Scala]]'s core [[API]] really lack the slickness of the syntax and semantics of the language. [[Martin Odersky]] and friends shall realize that soon, before it is too late.
-	# Re.: ''fetish'' - so who will decide what is an acceptable change - [[Martin Odersky\|Martin]]? If the language (and its libraries) was treated as lightly as suggested above (e.g. if [[evolution]] is necessary, let's ignore all existing investments made by all users all around the world), then the right question is: Is [[scala]] ready for production environment? Or is it still just a university project?	+	# Re.: ''fetish'' - so who will decide what is an acceptable change - [[Martin Odersky\|Martin]]? If the language (and its libraries) was treated as lightly as suggested above (e.g. if [[evolution]] is necessary, let's ignore all existing investments made by all the unknown users all around the world), then the right question is: Is [[scala]] ready for production environment? Or is it still just a university project?
-	# Re.: ''need to be [[JVM]] compatible'' - this is always trade off. Either you design whole system yourself (technically easy, hard to promote) and then you have as much freedom as you want. Or your try to piggy back on success of another technology ([[API]] or [[JVM]], etc.). In the later case you need to make sacrifices, but you share the momentum behind the already existing system (aka [[Java]]).	+	# Re.: ''need to be [[JVM]] compatible'' - this is always a trade off. Either you design whole system yourself (technically easy, hard to promote) and then you have as much freedom as you want. Or your try to piggy back on success of another technology ([[API]] or [[JVM]], etc.). In the later case you need to make sacrifices, but you share the momentum behind the already existing system (aka [[Java]]).

	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

JaroslavTulach: /* Landei said ... */

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:18:27 GMT

Landei said ...

←Older revision		Revision as of 08:18, 12 August 2009
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Thanks for your comment Landei.		Thanks for your comment Landei.

-	# Re.: ''some [[API]]s are ugly'' - all I want is to point out that core language [[API]]s are as important the language itself. [[Scala]]'s core [[API]] really lack the slickness of the syntax and semantics of the language. [[Martin Odersky]] and friends shall realize that soon, before it is too late.	+	# Re.: ''some [[API]]s are ugly'' - all I want is to point out that core language [[API]]s are as important as the language itself. [[Scala]]'s core [[API]] really lack the slickness of the syntax and semantics of the language. [[Martin Odersky]] and friends shall realize that soon, before it is too late.
	# Re.: ''fetish'' - so who will decide what is an acceptable change - [[Martin Odersky\|Martin]]? If the language (and its libraries) was treated as lightly as suggested above (e.g. if [[evolution]] is necessary, let's ignore all existing investments made by all users all around the world), then the right question is: Is [[scala]] ready for production environment? Or is it still just a university project?		# Re.: ''fetish'' - so who will decide what is an acceptable change - [[Martin Odersky\|Martin]]? If the language (and its libraries) was treated as lightly as suggested above (e.g. if [[evolution]] is necessary, let's ignore all existing investments made by all users all around the world), then the right question is: Is [[scala]] ready for production environment? Or is it still just a university project?
	# Re.: ''need to be [[JVM]] compatible'' - this is always trade off. Either you design whole system yourself (technically easy, hard to promote) and then you have as much freedom as you want. Or your try to piggy back on success of another technology ([[API]] or [[JVM]], etc.). In the later case you need to make sacrifices, but you share the momentum behind the already existing system (aka [[Java]]).		# Re.: ''need to be [[JVM]] compatible'' - this is always trade off. Either you design whole system yourself (technically easy, hard to promote) and then you have as much freedom as you want. Or your try to piggy back on success of another technology ([[API]] or [[JVM]], etc.). In the later case you need to make sacrifices, but you share the momentum behind the already existing system (aka [[Java]]).

	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

JaroslavTulach at 08:16, 12 August 2009

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:16:55 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 08:16, 12 August 2009
Line 13:		Line 13:
	--Landei 09:38, 10 August 2009 (CEST)		--Landei 09:38, 10 August 2009 (CEST)

		+	</div>

		+	Thanks for your comment Landei.

-	~~</div>~~	+	# Re.: ''some [[API]]s are ugly'' - all I want is to point out that core language [[API]]s are as important the language itself. [[Scala]]'s core [[API]] really lack the slickness of the syntax and semantics of the language. [[Martin Odersky]] and friends shall realize that soon, before it is too late.
		+	# Re.: ''fetish'' - so who will decide what is an acceptable change - [[Martin Odersky\|Martin]]? If the language (and its libraries) was treated as lightly as suggested above (e.g. if [[evolution]] is necessary, let's ignore all existing investments made by all users all around the world), then the right question is: Is [[scala]] ready for production environment? Or is it still just a university project?
		+	# Re.: ''need to be [[JVM]] compatible'' - this is always trade off. Either you design whole system yourself (technically easy, hard to promote) and then you have as much freedom as you want. Or your try to piggy back on success of another technology ([[API]] or [[JVM]], etc.). In the later case you need to make sacrifices, but you share the momentum behind the already existing system (aka [[Java]]).
		+
		+	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

192.9.112.196 at 07:43, 12 August 2009

192.9.112.196 — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:43:04 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 07:43, 12 August 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:
	<div class='commentBlock'>		<div class='commentBlock'>
	Yes, some of the current [[Scala]]-APIs are ugly, but I can't agree with your generalization.		Yes, some of the current [[Scala]]-APIs are ugly, but I can't agree with your generalization.
-	- [[Scala]] is still in flow, and the community is willing to accept incompatibilities if there is a real improvement. ~~Backward compatitibility~~ isn't the fetish it became in [[Java]]land - it's important, but only as long as it doesn't block the [[evolution]] of the language	+	- [[Scala]] is still in flow, and the community is willing to accept incompatibilities if there is a real improvement. [[BackwardCompatibility]] isn't the fetish it became in [[Java]]land - it's important, but only as long as it doesn't block the [[evolution]] of the language
	- Some design decisions are driven by the need to be JVM compatible. A "Standalone-Scala" would certainly look cleaner		- Some design decisions are driven by the need to be JVM compatible. A "Standalone-Scala" would certainly look cleaner
	- You have much more possibilities to work around [[API]] shortcomings in [[Scala]] than in [[Java]]		- You have much more possibilities to work around [[API]] shortcomings in [[Scala]] than in [[Java]]

	--Landei 09:38, 10 August 2009 (CEST)		--Landei 09:38, 10 August 2009 (CEST)
		+
		+
		+
	</div>		</div>

JaroslavTulach: Using wiki words

JaroslavTulach — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:39:53 GMT

Using wiki words

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 11 August 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:

	<div class='commentBlock'>		<div class='commentBlock'>
-	Yes, some of the current Scala-APIs are ugly, but I can't agree with your generalization.	+	Yes, some of the current [[Scala]]-APIs are ugly, but I can't agree with your generalization.
-	- Scala is still in flow, and the community is willing to accept incompatibilities if there is a real improvement. Backward compatitibility isn't the fetish it became in ~~Javaland~~ - it's important, but only as long as it doesn't block the evolution of the language	+	- [[Scala]] is still in flow, and the community is willing to accept incompatibilities if there is a real improvement. Backward compatitibility isn't the fetish it became in [[Java]]land - it's important, but only as long as it doesn't block the [[evolution]] of the language
	- Some design decisions are driven by the need to be JVM compatible. A "Standalone-Scala" would certainly look cleaner		- Some design decisions are driven by the need to be JVM compatible. A "Standalone-Scala" would certainly look cleaner
-	- You have much more possibilities to work around API shortcomings in Scala than in Java	+	- You have much more possibilities to work around [[API]] shortcomings in [[Scala]] than in [[Java]]

	--Landei 09:38, 10 August 2009 (CEST)		--Landei 09:38, 10 August 2009 (CEST)
	</div>		</div>

62.153.229.174: Comment provided by Landei - via ArticleComments extension

62.153.229.174 — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:38:02 GMT

Comment provided by Landei - via ArticleComments extension

New page

<noinclude>Comments on [[Scala]]
<comments />
----- __NOEDITSECTION__</noinclude>

== Landei said ... ==

<div class='commentBlock'>
Yes, some of the current Scala-APIs are ugly, but I can't agree with your generalization.
- Scala is still in flow, and the community is willing to accept incompatibilities if there is a real improvement. Backward compatitibility isn't the fetish it became in Javaland - it's important, but only as long as it doesn't block the evolution of the language
- Some design decisions are driven by the need to be JVM compatible. A "Standalone-Scala" would certainly look cleaner
- You have much more possibilities to work around API shortcomings in Scala than in Java

--Landei 09:38, 10 August 2009 (CEST)
</div>