21–30 of 265 posts
Otherwise known as "Haskell"?
Much to the Scalaz crowd's dismay, Scala always was an ML first and foremost. Any similarity to Haskell is incidental to Haskell/ML's shared background in strongly typed functional programming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue scala' main selling point is making the jvm palatable to people who hate Java. However, it's entirely unclear without the jvm why I would choose it over, say, rust, Haskell, go, c++, etc.
That is a very narrow view of Scala. It's a great and powerful language.
It's actually a pretty good question. A lot of Scala's design is full of compromises made for Java inter-op. A huge motivation for using Scala is "I want a modern language which allows me to use all these existing Java libraries and tools". If you remove the ecosystem and the inter-op, what is there left for Scala? Why not use a better language?
Otherwise known as "Haskell"?
Yeah, think of it as practical Haskell that you can actually use in your day to day work ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a very narrow view of Scala. It's a great and powerful language.
No-one denies Scala is a fine language, but I don't think that's a narrow view of it. It's actually a pretty good question. A lot of Scala's design is full of compromises made for Java inter-op. A huge motivation for using Scala is "I want a modern language which allows me to use all these existing Java libraries and tools". If you remove the ecosystem and the inter-op, what is there left for Scala? Why not use a bet…
Can you provide an example of what you think is a better language?
Is this a "true" Scala? As in, if I write a Scala program that only uses the scala stdlib, will it run on both the JVM and Scala native with no modifications to the source? Or, is it more like "a Scala" in the same way you would say "a Lisp"? I think a lot of the design decisions for Scala were made so that Scala would work on the JVM and easily inter-op with Java. It might make more sense to modify the language slig…
Clearly they added a bunch of new stuff that the JVM can't understand. So it is either "Scala like LISP" or It is a superset of the Scala language. Meaning all existing stuff will work with it, but if you use new secret keywords it will work "better". Which seems not quite ideal, because that means most Scala libraries will not be "tuned", and you will need all new libraries.. just like ScalaJS made you need entirely…
Hi all, I'm the author of the project and would gladly answer any questions.
I have been so extraordinarily impressed with Scala, and with the contributions its made in the PLT field, I'm very excited for Scala Native to start picking up steam.
Can we expect the same level of excellence from Scala Native as we've received from Scala for JVM?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, think of it as practical Haskell that you can actually use in your day to day work ;-)
Haskell is a practical language, and one usual impediment for using it in your day to day work is "we must use the JVM". What happens if you remove that requirement? :)
In a way, simple Scala code resembles Swift, as commented by this person: https://leverich.github.io/swiftislikescala/ Now the type system of course is entirely different.
val label = "The width is "
val width = 94
val widthLabel = label + width
val first = "2"
val second = 3
val together1 = first + second
val together2 = second + first
Hopefully Scala at least has some very well defined and easy rules for exactly how string concatenation works, but I think it's an uphill battle to argue that '+' is a good concatenation operator.
Hi all, I'm the author of the project and would gladly answer any questions.
EDIT: Thank you!
https://github.com/densh/talks/blob/517b20c30dd4aaf390785039...
Just saw this on twitter. Scala, you have my attention. There were a lot of talks about "the tools of yesterday" and "the tools of the future" lately. Scala getting closer to the metal, without the JVM is a significant step toward "the tools of the future".