On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 23:41:35 +0200, Simon Ochsenreither
<simon.ochsenreit...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sorry, but I feel I should point out that this contributes to the
academic/elite argument about Scala.
Isn't this argument getting boring after a while? I think it is sad that
"academic" is being used as a slander along the line of "not being
practical".
If you prefer "unpractical" to "academic" I'm fine, but the Merriam
Webster reports (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/academic) as a
meaning of academic:
3b. "having no practical or useful significance"
(I've checked just to verify that it wasn't a false friend to me).
Is there actual _any_ point someone is allowed to make which can't be
hand-waved with "If you say that, you're an academic and therefore what
you
say doesn't count"?
You are again misreporting my statement. I've said: you focus on the
compiler design, and most programmer just don't care of compiler design:
your argument doesn't "sell". *Thus* I think it's not practical
In my opinion cleaning up syntactical and semantical warts and
weirdnesses
is one of the most practical things to do, but feel free to disagree.
Generally speaking I don't disagree. I can think of the concept of a
language that's practically better than Java for most people, for me, and
it is syntactically and semantically cleaner than Java. What I'm saying is
that the implication "cleaner -> more pratical, more popular" is not
automatic. It's just that practical evidence says that people do care more
of other things. When we'll have more Scala programmers than Java
programmers I'll be proven wrong. Furthermore, there are many languages
out here and I don't think Scala is the only one cleaner than Java.
Every item (except for "Hardcoded implicit conversions for certain types
")
on the list above is actually something a user of Java is exposed to
while
reading code.
... and it seems people handle it very well. That's my point. BTW,
autoboxing, which I understand is not an elegant solution from the
compiler design point of view, is rather intuitive for a developer (what's
not intuitive is a bag of nasty side effects of autoboxing, such as
performance traps or equals() vs == mismatches, but honestly they aren't
ruining many programmers' days). I think this is a effective
counter-example.
No point above is in any substantial way related to an actual compiler
implementation.
So perhaps I've missed the reason for which you were citing them.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s.
"We make Java work. Everywhere."
http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog - fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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.
