How's that a case for simplicity for scala? In java, "5 + 2" means just what you think it means, intuitively. If you want to know more still you'll have delve into the extensive JLS which confirms your suspicions.
In scala you need to delve into the libraries, and you really have no idea what it could possibly do - every object can field its own definition of '+'. This isn't simple anymore; the drive to libraryize all complexity means that most seemingly atomic library operations are in fact not the lowest layer, but they build on a lower layer still, and in languages like scala, that lowest of layers is not all that natural. I continue to assert that claiming scala is simpler because the JLS is longer than the scala equivalent is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. On Aug 6, 10:59 am, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com> wrote: > The idea that we can establish some sort of formal complexity measurement > for documentation is... interesting. > Although I think there's more joy to be had in measuring EBNF, or the size > of some other parser grammar considered complete for the language. > > I'd also like to briefly explore one of the differences between the two > language specs... Consider the `+` operator. > > In the JLS, this is covered in chapter 15, "expressions" > 15.18 - additive operators > 15.18.1 - string concatenation > 15.18.1.1 - string conversion > 15.18.1.2 - optimization of string concatenation > 15.18.1.3 - examples of string concatenation > 15.18.2 - additive operators for numeric types > Spanning pages 496-501 > > It's a bit different in Scala, which doesn't have operators as quite the > same way. They're just methods in infix/operator notation. > > Everything in Scala is also an object (no primitives). Int, Float, String > etc. are still optimised in the compiler, and will often use primitives in > the generated bytecode, but within Scala code they are objects. So `+` > becomes a method on the String/Int/Float/etc. object. The Scala spec > doesn't list API methods any more than the JLS does. > > What the spec *does* have is section 6.12.3, outlining how methods used in > the infix position have a precedence determined by the first character of > the operator name. One beauty of thie approach is that it effectively gives > you operator overloading, allowing things like > this:http://www.scala-lang.org/api/current/scala/math/BigDecimal.html > > This is sufficient to be able to duplicate Java's behaviour, by building up > to it on the basis of a broader (and simpler) concept. > > So "x" + 2 May look the same as Java, but it's actually achieved via the > `+` method on a String instance, and not a dedicated special-case operator > with 3 sections in the language spec. > > On 6 August 2010 00:38, JodaStephen <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Kevin Wright is fond of repeating: > > Java (3rd Edition): 649 pages, 7932 KB > > Scala (current in trunk): 191 pages, 1312 KB > > therefore Scala is less complex. > > > But has anyone actually analysed the specs in detail? > > > In code coverage terms, how many distinct "code paths" are there in > > each spec. That is surely a far better measure than number of pages. > > > Volunteers for counting?!! > > > Stephen > > > -- > > 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.
