Talk:Scala
From APIDesign
(Difference between revisions)
(Using wiki words) |
|||
| 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. | + | - [[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> | ||
Revision as of 07:43, 12 August 2009
Comments on Scala <comments />
Follow
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. BackwardCompatibility 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)