On Sep 30, 12:41 pm, Kevin Wright wrote:
> Not so! Lisp came a full 14 years before Smalltalk, and Fortran was 4 years
> before that!
> Fortran definitely still has strong advocates amongst the scientific
> community :)
> Of course, if you want to go all the way back to zealotry over the lambda
>
Not so! Lisp came a full 14 years before Smalltalk, and Fortran was 4 years
before that!
Fortran definitely still has strong advocates amongst the scientific
community :)
Of course, if you want to go all the way back to zealotry over the lambda
calculus...
On 30 September 2010 12:03, Vince O'Sul
On Sep 29, 8:22 am, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
> I have seen a lot of language advocacy over these past twenty years
> (comp.lang.advocacy ftw!) but none has come even remotely close to the
> intolerance and aggressiveness shown by Scala advocates
Absolutely nothing. I was trying to point out that pointing out errors
in someone's post immediately followed by suggestions that person is
an idiot and should not be taken seriously is a jackass move.
On Sep 29, 2:50 pm, Josh Suereth wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> This just needed to be repeated, is all:
>
> On Sep 29, 9:04 am, Casper Bang wrote:
> >
> > Well for one thing, Groovy as a super-set to Java felt much more
> > natural. And rarely would you get in a discussion about the future of
> >
If Paul says every word correctly, it's just no fun for Reinier.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Josh Suereth wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot
> wrote:
>>
>> No, Paul isn't right. The parser does NOT reject:
>>
>> "foo bar baz bam"
>>
>> because it means "foo.
yacc is LALR. This is a different parser strategy compared to LL(k),
usually used to parse java code (by e.g. both javac and ecj), and
different style from RD/packrat, which is what (I believe) scala uses.
RD (Recursive Descent) doesn't need a lexer because all it does is
match a stream of raw cha
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> No, Paul isn't right. The parser does NOT reject:
>
> "foo bar baz bam"
>
> because it means "foo.bar(baz).bam()". It cannot determine that that
> particular meaning doesn't work, for example because "baz" doesn't
> exist, or "bar" do
I believe scala uses an RD-type parser (it might packrat for
efficiency). RD-type parsers don't need, and usually don't use, a
lexer. It's really a much nicer way of building parsers than LL(k) or
LALR. Simpler to understand, far simpler to update the grammar (a
major benefit is that you don't need
No, Paul isn't right. The parser does NOT reject:
"foo bar baz bam"
because it means "foo.bar(baz).bam()". It cannot determine that that
particular meaning doesn't work, for example because "baz" doesn't
exist, or "bar" does not take any arguments, until some later phase.
On Sep 29, 11:50 am,
Perhaps it would be useful, when you believe you're seeing aggression,
not to mirror it.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> Kevin, Please use the search feature of this newsgroup to find me a
> post where anyone makes the claim that Lombok and/or LambdaJ can do
> everyt
Groovy wasn't even a superset, as it removed most of the compile-time checks.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> This just needed to be repeated, is all:
>
> On Sep 29, 9:04 am, Casper Bang wrote:
>>
>> Well for one thing, Groovy as a super-set to Java felt much more
>
Kevin, Please use the search feature of this newsgroup to find me a
post where anyone makes the claim that Lombok and/or LambdaJ can do
everything scala can do.
I think I see the problem: You see more hostility than there is. No
one has ever made such a claim. You're seeing ghosts. And by trying t
This just needed to be repeated, is all:
On Sep 29, 9:04 am, Casper Bang wrote:
>
> Well for one thing, Groovy as a super-set to Java felt much more
> natural. And rarely would you get in a discussion about the future of
> Java, only to have "just use Groovy" slapped in your face constantly
> as
Every time I've written a Parser in JavaCC or Antlr I've referred to it as
simply "the parser" or "the parsing phase". The fact that it would lex my
code as well is an implementation detail.
In any case, if you want to see the tokens lexed when Scala reads Java
source the file is here:
http://la
It was called frontend back when I studied lex and yacc. Lexer
consumes an alphabet into tokens, parser consumes tokens into AST.
Kevin said "takes raw characters and builds the abstract syntax tree"
which makes it sound like Scala has no lexer, I assume from your
response that it DOES.
On Sep 29,
The lexing/parsing phase is called 'parser'.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
> Scala doesn't use a lexer?
>
> On Sep 29, 11:50 am, Kevin Wright wrote:
> > The sequence is:
> >
> > parser -> takes raw characters and builds the abstract syntax tree
> > namer -> scans the synta
Reading that back, I'm not so sure now, as all the identifiers are valid. It
seems more likely that it'll fail at the namer phase
Only way to be absolutely sure is if I fire up the REPL and test...
On 29 September 2010 10:50, Kevin Wright wrote:
> The sequence is:
>
> parser -> takes raw charact
Scala doesn't use a lexer?
On Sep 29, 11:50 am, Kevin Wright wrote:
> The sequence is:
>
> parser -> takes raw characters and builds the abstract syntax tree
> namer -> scans the syntax tree to build a symbol table (identifying classes,
> methods, etc.)
> typer -> assigns types to nodes on the AS
The sequence is:
parser -> takes raw characters and builds the abstract syntax tree
namer -> scans the syntax tree to build a symbol table (identifying classes,
methods, etc.)
typer -> assigns types to nodes on the AST
etc...
Paul is quite right when he states that the code won't "parse", that's
The phase you're talking about is named 'typer', as far as I know.
Parsing happens without knowledge of what each token means, otherwise
you can get into exponential time/memory.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Kevin Wright wrote:
> About the Reddit post...
> Truth is, all languages (except li
About the Reddit post...
Truth is, all languages (except lisp) have some potential for
misunderstanding when it comes to precedence, associativity, etc.
If in doubt, use brackets - that's what they're for!
About the rest of this thread...
Obviously I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm no
I don't think it is reasonable to expect the hight of culture and
sophistication from a bunch or pirates.
YrgAvast!
--
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 uns
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
> > What is it about Scala that causes so many to loathe it?
>
> I feel compelled to turn it around on yourself. Why MUST everyone
> absolutely love it?
I think this is the key point.
I have seen a lot of language advocacy over these past tw
. and () are not both optional, it's just another syntax.
foo.bar(baz) can be written as foo bar baz. foo.bar().baz() cannot be
written as foo bar baz, that would be ambiguous grammar.
foo.bar().baz() can be written as foo.bar.baz, or depending on
context, foo.bar baz.
If you reduce the above to
On Sep 29, 3:20 am, Josh Suereth wrote:
> I would argue more that Scala is language that invokes strong emotions.
> Love or Hate. Unfortunately for the Scala community, some members are far
> to zealous in their arguments, such that it may annoy others. However, I
> remember the same kinds of
On Sep 29, 4:18 am, Paul Phillips wrote:
>
> It's not possible? If you don't know the language it's not possible,
> I guess.
Ah, yes, turns out if accountName is a method in this snippet:
user getAccount accountName isEnabled
scala indeed appears to throw out a compiler error complaining a
Yes. Invoking strong emotions is an aspect of trolling. That was my
point. It's a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Time to get meta: You're asking people to actually list out the
reasons for why they dislike Scala while at the same time asking why
those same people tend to 'argue repeatedly
On Sep 28, 10:04 am, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> The gist of the first part of that argument is that this, which is
> legal scala code:
>
> user getAccount accountName isEnabled
>
> is indicative of a bad language. Its not possible to tell if this is
> a golfed version of: user.getAccount().
I would argue more that Scala is language that invokes strong emotions.
Love or Hate. Unfortunately for the Scala community, some members are far
to zealous in their arguments, such that it may annoy others. However, I
remember the same kinds of taunts from Groovy users at work. Why was that
l
"trolling" has really only one meaning:
An act which is intentionally designed to get a rise out of someone.
It can be done for two separate reasons; one, just to be an ass, the
other is as the epitomy of satire (this one is excusable but a bit too
deep to get into here).
Scala seems to fit the
31 matches
Mail list logo
