> > What makes a great language designer is not the ability to implement >> complicated pieces of the compiler but the simple ability to say "No". >> > That's why I'm using Scala. :-)
I'd love to see an example where Scala's designer didn't say "no" in the last half decade and which you think impacted the language negatively. You can't ignore features in a language you don't like >> > What an double entendre, this makes my day. :-) Add to the list of "Java language features not in Scala": - Special cased arrays (e. g. in for loops) in the language spec - Special syntax for defining, indexing and updating as well as fun syntactical variants like "int[] foo[] = ..." - Syntactic special cases for casts and instance-of checks - Class literals - A lot of different literal variants (like octal integer literals or floating point literals like 1.) - Bad integration of generics and arrays - Raw types - Forced use-site generics - Refinement types in the type system with no representation in source - Hardcoded implicit conversions for certain types Different in Scala: - One, unified reflection API shared between runtime reflection, compile-time reflection and the compiler (instead of having two different, incompatible APIs like in Java, where one of them lacks an implementation, forcing users of those interfaces to re-implement compiler-logic. - Flexible backend which allows targeting different JVM versions while retaining the full feature set. - Two namespaces (types, terms) instead of four like in Java (types, packages, methods, fields) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/ZIPltzvyPrQJ. 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.
