Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scala Native v0.1

scala-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 254 posts

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#201

Post by pjmlp »

taeric wrote: post #169
pjmlp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is anything but positive, as it also shares C's style of unsafety due to its semantics.

Which is ultimately irrelevant here. Consider, C is rock solid safe compared to machine/assembly. (Though, I tend to share the annoyance of javascript...)

C is just as unsafe as Assembly, as the weekly CVE entries prove.

The only differences between C and a powerful macro assembler like MASM, is that C is portable across CPU architectures and exposes less internals.

Rock solid?

With all the UB that Assembly actually doesn't have, and the types of memory corruption issues shared with Assembly programming, not really.

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#202

Post by pjmlp »

notgood wrote: post #172
pjmlp wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No,but implicit conversions, including from operators into numeric values isn't much better. The amount of page differences between "JavaScript the good parts" and the actual language reference speaks for itself.

That book was created before many alternatives came out; now if you are working in a team project you should look at JavaScript the same way you look at assembler, you know it will be the final thing but you shouldn't be creating it directly, but instead "compiling" from TypeScript, ELM, etc. (langs with no implicit conversions, strong typing, etc)

Those alternatives are nice in startup land, in enterprise consulting land, we get to use what the customer IT department sanctions as allowed programming languages and tools installed on computers for external consultants.

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#203

Post by therealmarv »

hocuspocus wrote: post #22
bluejekyll wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long time Java lover here. I agree with all your points, but in the context of Java at least (does Scala support this?) there is no simple static binary that can be built and released, which includes the JVM. I think 1.9 will have this option, but this is something I didn't realize I missed until I started work with Rust and Go. It makes deployment so much simpler.

In the age of containers it's really not that much harder to build and deploy a JVM app. Edit: thanks for the downvotes but you could at least tell me what's so crazy about my statement.

No downvote from me. But a explanation why e.g. compiled binaries are better. I had a hard time to get a normal non fancy Scala Play project running on a 512MB DigitalOcean instance. Mostly because it needs a lot more ram for building. I solved it with using a bigger swap partition. With single binary precompiled programs this problem is more a developer machine problem than a infrastructure problem. So I think the deployment step itself (and not looking at anything else) is easier with a small single binaries.

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#204

Post by pjmlp »

anoctopus wrote: post #180
scotchmi_st wrote: post #116

I would love for there to be a similarly thorough project with Clojure. It really bothers me there's no good native compiler. Apart from anything else, it means that Clojure lives and dies by the languages it compiles to, and while Java is used everywhere still, it probably isn't the thing the kids are learning these days. Besides, without going into any further rational arguments for why using the JVM (or another VM…

Java is still taught in plenty of places and is entrenched enough to stick around for the foreseeable future. The JVM would still be fine even if Java the language declined. Clojure is is a much less vulnerable position than most languages in terms of VM risk, with Clojurescript and ClojureCLR. The real benefit of native Clojure to me would be for reducing startup time and the JVM overhead in containers. The best opt…

You always need a runtime, even if it is a native compiled one.

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#205

Post by pjmlp »

geodel wrote: post #165
sreque wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many things pointed out in this article apply to just about every managed language runtime. Implement a TreeSet in any language and you'll see the same overhead from object headers, memory alignment, etc. Java has some oddities that cause it to waste extra memory, but off the top of my head the only I can think of is 16-bit character Strings. Java 9 is supposed to help with that by allowing Strings to internally stor…

Go uses quite a bit less memory than Java. http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/go.html

Due to value types support, which are part of Java 10's roadmap.

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#206

Post by alehander42 »

pjmlp wrote: post #200
jwdunne wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they tend to just Go. Interestingly, I've read a lot of Go users come from the Ruby and Python communities.

What is interesting is leaving the expressiveness behind of a language like Ruby or Python, for a bit of AOT compilation to native code. I bet if something like RubyMotion wasn't a commercial product, the reality would be quite different.

Crystal and Nim can be good alternatives, no type system sucks anyway

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#207

Post by pjmlp »

alehander42 wrote: post #206
pjmlp wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is interesting is leaving the expressiveness behind of a language like Ruby or Python, for a bit of AOT compilation to native code. I bet if something like RubyMotion wasn't a commercial product, the reality would be quite different.

Crystal and Nim can be good alternatives, no type system sucks anyway

I agree, but they lack the Google stamp, which is one reason for Go's adoption.

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#208

Post by fulafel »

emmelaich wrote: post #156
scotchmi_st wrote: post #116

I would love for there to be a similarly thorough project with Clojure. It really bothers me there's no good native compiler. Apart from anything else, it means that Clojure lives and dies by the languages it compiles to, and while Java is used everywhere still, it probably isn't the thing the kids are learning these days. Besides, without going into any further rational arguments for why using the JVM (or another VM…

Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't one of the existing Schemes be a better or as good option? I thought the benefit/raison d'etre to Clojure is the JVM ecosystem.

IME the biggest thing is having the same, much-better-than-JS language on front and back end.

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#209

Post by fleurdelotus »

jwdunne wrote: post #160
pjmlp wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isn't the thing the kids are learning these days Yep, they learn Ruby and then they need to go JRuby when performance becomes relevant. :)

Or they tend to just Go. Interestingly, I've read a lot of Go users come from the Ruby and Python communities.

I've read a lot of Go users come from the Ruby and Python communities

Don't believe what you read, especially when it originates from a biased source.

When i want productivity, i use python.

When i want speed, i use c.

When i want both, i use both.

Re: Scala Native v0.1

#210

Post by stykky »

pjmlp wrote: post #139
scotchmi_st wrote: post #116

I would love for there to be a similarly thorough project with Clojure. It really bothers me there's no good native compiler. Apart from anything else, it means that Clojure lives and dies by the languages it compiles to, and while Java is used everywhere still, it probably isn't the thing the kids are learning these days. Besides, without going into any further rational arguments for why using the JVM (or another VM…

> isn't the thing the kids are learning these days Yep, they learn Ruby and then they need to go JRuby when performance becomes relevant. :)

why Ruby's performances are low? I've tried ruby but sintatically makes my eyes sad. and i left
Post reply on HN