ah-hah! both specifications contain a grammar, so I counted em' :)
Java desribes it's grammar thusly: "The grammar presented piecemeal in the preceding chapters is much better for exposition, but it is not well suited as a basis for a parser. The grammar presented in this chapter is the basis for the reference implementation. Note that it is not an LL(1) grammar, though in many cases it minimizes the necessary look ahead." and for Scala, it's simply: "The lexical syntax of Scala is given by the following grammar in EBNF form." Ominous, to be sure, but not exactly objective. The actual sizes, on the other hand... - Java: 368 lines over 12 pages - Scala: 257 lines over 6 pages (Scala uses a smaller font) The Scala spec is 111 lines shorter, a reduction of roughly 30% So I could, in one sense, claim that Scala is 30% simpler than Java. I just don't know if it's a particularly useful sense :) On 6 August 2010 14:20, jitesh dundas <jbdun...@gmail.com> wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: jitesh dundas <jbdun...@gmail.com> > Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 18:44:44 +0530 > Subject: Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Scala and Java spec size > To: Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com> > > I never meant the > size of the specifications,rather the type (& even readibility of the > same.) > > A specific fruit is present at east corner of the basket. > The user wants that fruit.The tutorial tells him how that can be > done(where to get this fruit & how) > specs tells everything & not the solution. > > regards, > jd > > On 8/6/10, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm under no delusion here that the size of the specification document > > proves anything. > > > > However... If one is to OBJECTIVELY decide which of two programming > > languages is inherently more complicated, then something must be > measured. > > Going on a sense of "well, X *feels* more complicated to me" may well > have > > personal value, but it carries very little authority when attempting to > > persuade others of your viewpoint. > > > > Measuring spec size is a very flawed methodology here (it's not the size > > that counts...), but at least it IS a methodology, and it involves > something > > that can be impartially measured. And, as a methodology, it can be > improved > > upon. > > > > As previously stated, I believe that measuring the size of some formal > > grammar would be far more revealing. > > And accurate :) > > > > > > On 6 August 2010 11:38, jitesh dundas <jbdun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Very honestly, I found that reading specs was more about understanding. > >> Specs are complicated & rather difficult to understand. Moreover, > >> would you like to look into a basket of mixed fruits everywhere when > >> you could look at just a location of the basket. > >> Tutorials help you with the latter & that is what novice people want.. > >> Specs reading is for experts & interests.. > >> I am in the second category as reading specs does boost your > efficiency. > >> Fabrizio Sir, you might like adding the last point of reading specs in > >> your article (really interesting article on improving efficiency) > >> > >> Regards, > >> Jitesh Dundas > >> > >> On 8/6/10, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> wrote: > >> > > >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> > Hash: SHA1 > >> > > >> > On 8/6/10 11:32 , Kevin Wright wrote: > >> >> First came bikes, they had very few moving parts, and so were easy > >> >> to understand Then came the infernal combustion engine, with more > >> >> moving parts and harder to understand, but definitely faster Then > >> >> came the jet turbine, with just a single moving part, and rockets > >> >> with none > >> >> > >> >> A car is more effective than a bike, but also more complex A plane > >> >> is more effective than a car, but also less complex So simplicity > >> >> and effectiveness are not correlated here. > >> >> > >> >> Why is it, then, that cars seen as normal and simple; while jets > >> >> and rockets are perceived as modern and advanced? As many will > >> >> point out, rockets pre-date cars by a long way, the Chinese have > >> >> used them in fireworks for a *long* time. And the concepts > >> >> underlying a turbine are far simpler than those behind a > >> >> four-stroke engine. > >> >> > >> >> It's a good metaphor, with plenty of scope for extending. > >> >> Consider that modern petrol engines use "injection"... > >> >> > >> >> > >> > Right. In fact I question that a car is more effective than a bicycle, > >> > or a plane more than a car. It depends on the use. But there's another > >> > thing to add: one thing is the implementation complexity (needed for > >> > people that make bikes/cars/languages) and the interface complexity > >> > (needed or people that use bike/cars/languages). I find quite obvious > >> > that driving a car is more complex than riding a bicycle (*). So, we > >> > should also put the specs size in this perspective (in other words: I > >> > suspect that 99% of the people who program in Java never read the > >> > specs, but a much simpler tutorial). > >> > > >> > (*) In general. I drive cars, but I'm not able to ride a bicycle :-((( > >> > > >> > - -- > >> > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > >> > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > >> > java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people > >> > fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it > >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > >> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > >> > > >> > iEUEARECAAYFAkxb2hgACgkQeDweFqgUGxccfQCaA8FnQlvuVj5LIosLHmbZAUzM > >> > O34Al0605IAMxeyXHEJ2X3VcT1ZfIdg= > >> > =3DuM > >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> > > >> > -- > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> > Groups > >> > "The Java Posse" group. > >> > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > <javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > >> . > >> > For more options, visit this group at > >> > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Kevin Wright > > > > mail/google talk: kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com > > wave: kev.lee.wri...@googlewave.com > > skype: kev.lee.wright > > twitter: @thecoda > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail/google talk: kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wave: kev.lee.wri...@googlewave.com skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@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.
