Talk:Scala
From APIDesign
(Difference between revisions)
(→Landei said ...) |
|||
| 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) | ||
Revision as of 08:18, 12 August 2009
Comments on Scala <comments />
Landei said ...
Thanks for your comment Landei.
- Re.: some APIs are ugly - all I want is to point out that core language APIs 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? 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).
--JaroslavTulach 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
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)