Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)
#2The biggest thing that is still in the language that they should have removed early on is the native XML syntax support. If I were them I would take it out in 3.0 and break from that bad decision.
Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)
#3The biggest thing that is still in the language that they should have removed early on is the native XML syntax support. If I were them I would take it out in 3.0 and break from that bad decision.
[deleted]
Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)
#4Gosu has the same dynamic feel in a statically typed JVM language, with much less complexity. (I should mention Fantom too, although I'm much less familiar with it.)
Artima appears to have gone all-scala-all-the-time at some point in 2010. Weird.
Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)
#5Maybe I missed something, but there is nothing in there that gives me the feel of a dynamically typed language. What he describes feels more like Haskell than Python.
Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)
#6The biggest thing that is still in the language that they should have removed early on is the native XML syntax support. If I were them I would take it out in 3.0 and break from that bad decision.
please elaborate? do you think its harmful because it influences people to reach for XML instead of another format?
Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)
#7> I find it one of the most promising things about Scala -- it is not determined to become an instant boat anchor by committing to early decisions that are later revealed to be suboptimal, or outright mistakes.
The fact that Scala uses the JVM, with a hacky workaround for type erasure, is suboptimal.
Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)
#8> I find it one of the most promising things about Scala -- it is not determined to become an instant boat anchor by committing to early decisions that are later revealed to be suboptimal, or outright mistakes. The fact that Scala uses the JVM, with a hacky workaround for type erasure, is suboptimal.
Depends on what is suboptimal to you. If "suboptimal" is "not optimal for the perfect programming language", then sure. If "suboptimal" is "not optimal for real world use", then no.
Scala's interop with Java libraries has been a huge, huge boon, and undoubtedly drove take-up where there otherwise would have been none. Scala has come this far in a decade. Python is 20 years old. Ruby is 16. Scala came a long way in a short time, and was probably resigned to the dustbin of "that would have been cool" languages without that interop.
Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)
#9Maybe I missed something, but there is nothing in there that gives me the feel of a dynamically typed language. What he describes feels more like Haskell than Python.
Perhaps by "feels like a dynamic language" he means "is succinct".
Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)
#10> I find it one of the most promising things about Scala -- it is not determined to become an instant boat anchor by committing to early decisions that are later revealed to be suboptimal, or outright mistakes. The fact that Scala uses the JVM, with a hacky workaround for type erasure, is suboptimal.
The Scala team have plans afoot to target LLVM and .NET too.