once again you mention enterprisey folk? who are they???? what does that have to do with the rest of the sound you are making?
I guess I don't know scala enough yet to hate it ;) (can't remember who made up that quote !). Of course, there are the people who naturally gravitate to the dark corners of languages, and enjoy books like "java puzzlers" and take pleasure in perversity ;) - I am guessing scala won't treat them well. On Dec 18, 1:03 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, python is worse than java in sane compiler errors and tooling > support, but then, most languages are. > > Python offers far better introspection, though, compared to scala. > When things go wrong its easy to dive in there and ask python itself > how it thinks, for example by making a dump of the local variables. > It's not perfect, but I can see how enterprisey folk can deal with it. > I can see how python as a language can evolve to a place where this > becomes even less of an issue. I can see neither of these scenarios > for Scala. > > Ruby might be worse than python, but primarily ruby has a really > shitty compiler. It has no spec and its a kludgey source code, with a > patch-on-a-prayer attitude to fixing stuff. Part of the effort of > rubinius, JRuby, and other attempts to create another ruby interpreter > is to actually reverse engineer the 'reference implementation' (Matz' > C Ruby) and write a spec. So, is Ruby's occasional walk into the > arcane when you screw up endemic to the design of ruby itself, or > merely an artifact of the crappy parser? I'm guessing ruby is > salvageable to some extent, mostly because there's slightly less > confusion in its typing system (at the end of the day, you have an > object, and you have fields inside it, which you access and call / > read / write / operate on in some other way - in Scala you have an > object, and it has a type. That's a whole extra dimension. A very > useful dimension, but when worried about multiple interpretations, > extra dimensions are bad. It's a good thing that in java we don't have > to worry much about multiple interpretations due to its rigid syntax > rules). > > There is indeed some confusion in regards to the topic. However, I > don't think this was a fruitless discussion. I count myself as a > programmer who likes programming, and yet scala really confounds me at > times. I should stick longer with it so I can at some point be such an > expert I make very few syntax mistakes and the ones I do make are > solved quickly because I'm somewhat familiar with how the compiler > thinks, but, therein lies a problem: Why would I bother? The whole > point of a new language that is based on the same VM as a more > mainstream language is for it to be better and most importantly to me: > More 'fun' (you can read that as 'less aggrevating to use', if you > prefer). I've lost the joy of learning a new programming language much > quicker with scala after a few 'what the HECK is wrong now!?!?!?' > moments, which really take the wind out of your sails. That by itself > is a real problem for a language that has to market itself by word of > mouth. > > On Dec 17, 11:43 pm, Michael Neale <michael.ne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Where did I say enterprise ready? (or did you infer that from the > > topic). > > > I think most of you other Q's would be best directed at Martin - > > (would be good to have a posse episode where questions could be asked > > of martin). > > > AS for the comment: > > > > Even python can > > > easily claim to be an enterprise development language. If you screw > > > up, its easy to fix it > > > Well I work somewhere where python is quite important, and I can't > > agree with that. Ruby is worse, but you can really be confused by the > > permissiveness (but I have access to a pool of python people so its > > never really been a problem for me) - ruby confounds me with its > > messages at times (but perhaps you could say it has the same > > problem?). > > > On Dec 17, 9:06 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > No amount of tooling in the world is going to fix scala's uncanny > > > ability to throw tantrums the moment you make some typos. > > > > Scala is like an older ferrari or lamborghini. Very very cool, but the > > > thing will bite your head off unless you're a trained expert. > > > > Until scala makes some steps to address this issue, it'll never, ever, > > > ever, take java's throne amongst the larger enterprises where, between > > > the lack of 'cool' that chases away superstar programmers, and the > > > simple vast amount of people they hire; making sure they're all > > > entrenched programming geeks is simply infeasible. The 'this is just > > > another job' programmer simply will not enjoy actual scala usage. They > > > might like the demo, they might like the talks, but once you leave > > > them alone with scala, a bug report, and a few hours to fix it, > > > they'll start whining, and fast. > > > > That's possibly good news - not having to worry about that segment of > > > the programmer market is a relief, I'm sure. I'm just posting to make > > > sure no one makes the mistake of confusing scala for an enterprise > > > development language. I'm not sure if Odersky had this in mind when he > > > says that 'scala' stands for 'Scalable Language', but if he is under > > > the same misunderstanding as Michael Neale, that Scala is quite close > > > to being enterprise ready, he'll be in for a surprise. Even python can > > > easily claim to be an enterprise development language. If you screw > > > up, its easy to fix it, and there's plenty of introspection stuff that > > > any intro-level programmer can follow. It might not lead to code thats > > > as stable (jury's still out on that), but at least the folks on the > > > line know what the next step is, instead of spending 5 hours fiddling > > > with scala itself and delving into the Scala specs just to figure out > > > why in the world the compiler isn't doing what they think it ought to > > > do. The first case (bugs) can be modelled and planned for to some > > > extent. Wrestling the compiler isn't something you can even write down > > > on a timesheet without getting laughed out of the room. Enterprise? > > > No. Absolutely not going to happen. > > > > Incidentally, this doesn't mean I put any faith in the 'dumbing down' > > > arguments either. But for a slightly different reason: If you take a > > > good look at the virtualization-by-default strategy that java has used > > > to find the class with the 'right' implementation of a called method, > > > which has been there since day 1, it's actually very very complicated. > > > A good number of suggestions that are often denigrated against with a > > > 'the masses will not get this' argument actually tend to simplify > > > class structures somewhat and/or allow you to do things which are > > > otherwise not possible without using a far more complicated solution, > > > or using a carefully constructed class hierarchy (which brings back > > > the virtualization complexities). Simple case in point: The oft stated > > > whine that extension methods mean that you no longer know which method > > > is actually called. Yeah. So?. That's ALWAYS the case in java - you > > > NEVER know. Unless the method (or the entire class) of the type of > > > your reference is final, it's always a mystery. > > > > Getting back to the topic of scala: Scala is 'academic' - and I mean > > > this in the sense that scala will go to a great length to ensure that > > > pretty much everything in the standard handbook of 'stuff that might > > > throw some programming languages for a loop' isn't just possible with > > > scala, but actually looks great. This is a fine goal for any language, > > > but in its attempt to be like this, it has numerous features which > > > make compilation a fundamentally complex ordeal that unnecessarily > > > gets in the way of intelligent tools. > > > > A cross between java and scala with a big helping of tooling awareness > > > would be perfect: A language that runs on the JVM, has no qualms about > > > breaking the mold (and backwards compatibility), adds far more support > > > for semantic awareness of what your code is supposed to do (such as > > > the notion that scala has far -more- typing than java does), and is > > > based on the notion that you program in it using a fairly intelligent > > > environment instead of a dumb text terminal*. > > > > *) That presumption is the downfall of many programming languages. > > > Java can't really gloat here; java's relative friendliness to IDEs is > > > more serendipitous than a design goal by the original oak crew. I'm > > > still baffled that virtually nobody in the academic programming > > > language world accepts that IDEs are not just a fact of modern > > > programming life, but actually the next evolution in programming > > > languages: there are fundamental limits to the concept of passively > > > waiting for the user to fill a dumb terminal with characters, then > > > taking over from the user and parsing these characters into a process > > > that eventually leads to the code's execution. These limits are simply > > > not neccessary anymore. > > > > On Dec 16, 4:10 am, Michael Neale <michael.ne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > Barely related, but I have been meaning to post: the current state of > > > > the scala tools is really quite good. > > > > > I looked at IntelliJ 8 with the scala plug in - amazing. You can even > > > > mix java and scala source, and the maven plug in support is phenominal > > > > as well. > > > > > So the path is open to do incremental porting of an app from java to > > > > scala. > > > > > You can even run the regular unit tests you have from IntelliJ (that > > > > got me very excited - being able to keep runing unit tests as you port > > > > is awesome). > > > > > I see no reason scala could not be used if nothing else, as a much > > > > much better java, in the same situations. > > > > I don't buy the whole "dumbing down cause all the people I work with > > > > are idiots" implication in that a language is too complex. > > > > > You don't have to be too clever if you don't want to or don't need > > > > to. > > > > > A lot of the baroque patterns that are used in java apps to work > > > > around things (and heavy use of external config languages and XML) > > > > could be replaced if you use something like scala, if you want. > > > > > On Dec 15, 9:28 pm, "Viktor Klang" <viktor.kl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Jonas also happens > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
