Comments on: Scala 2.6.2 getting support for Java generics http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/ The weblog of Tony Morris Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:51:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Igor Hjelmstrom Vinhas Ribeiro http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1781 Igor Hjelmstrom Vinhas Ribeiro Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:53:57 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1781 Hey - your blog is very nice. "Scala is a far superior language to Java. In fact, of all the languages that I have investigated, it is the most powerful language that also targets the JVM and Java libraries easily (sorry CAL)." I am just curious about whether you have ever heard of / investigated SISC ( http://sisc-scheme.org/ ). Hey - your blog is very nice.

“Scala is a far superior language to Java. In fact, of all the languages that I have investigated, it is the most powerful language that also targets the JVM and Java libraries easily (sorry CAL).”

I am just curious about whether you have ever heard of / investigated SISC ( http://sisc-scheme.org/ ).

]]> By: λ Tony’s blog λ » Blog Archive » Offending Religiosity http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1780 λ Tony’s blog λ » Blog Archive » Offending Religiosity Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:51:55 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1780 [...] In my recent post, I made the following introductory statement: Scala is a far superior language to Java. [...] [...] In my recent post, I made the following introductory statement: Scala is a far superior language to Java. [...]

]]> By: Artur Biesiadowski http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1779 Artur Biesiadowski Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:53:35 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1779 As far as Tool versus Language Mavens are concerned - there is a lot of truth there. Unfortunately, there are way too many niche languages out there and most of them will die in obscurity - and hopefully, during their 1-2 years of fame, nobody will be 'smart' enough to use them in some kind of project requiring maintenance. Same is of course true for nonstandard IDE extensions - especially things like custom form builders are completely useless few years down the road. I think that my reliance on good tool support is a sign of something else - I want mature languages. I might be missing best-of-the-breed tool to solve the problem, but with mature languages I'm at least more sure that they will not disappear next year. It seems to me that tool support is a good sign of the mature language (has nothing to do with being good language of course). There are some notable exceptions - PowerBuilder comes to mind. As far as article you have mention is concerned, I do not think that graphs shown there (choice between focusing on the language features versus focusing on tools) are really true. I don't see tool versus language development as a choice. In most cases, same people will not do both things. New language obviously requires language developer - it cannot come from tool developer. And 'small' languages stay with language developers only - they are not attracting tool developers. In some way, it reminds me of the case with many games appearing on the internet. Often you end up with bunch of game programmers and no artists to support them. In some way, programmers are 'cheaper' to get for internet projects then modelers/graphic guys. Most probably it is because programming in such cases is fun (you mostly implement what you want), while art assets are work (you need to provide whatever assets are needed for the game). I somehow feel it is similar for new languages - implementing compiler is fun for some guys, adding tools on top of them is a pain nobody wants to touch. Do I want to bet the project maintenance on the language nobody can be bothered to write tools for? Probably not if the language is fresh. Does anybody remember kiev? I almost made a mistake of writing a big project in that... As far as Tool versus Language Mavens are concerned - there is a lot of truth there. Unfortunately, there are way too many niche languages out there and most of them will die in obscurity - and hopefully, during their 1-2 years of fame, nobody will be ’smart’ enough to use them in some kind of project requiring maintenance. Same is of course true for nonstandard IDE extensions - especially things like custom form builders are completely useless few years down the road. I think that my reliance on good tool support is a sign of something else - I want mature languages. I might be missing best-of-the-breed tool to solve the problem, but with mature languages I’m at least more sure that they will not disappear next year. It seems to me that tool support is a good sign of the mature language (has nothing to do with being good language of course). There are some notable exceptions - PowerBuilder comes to mind.

As far as article you have mention is concerned, I do not think that graphs shown there (choice between focusing on the language features versus focusing on tools) are really true. I don’t see tool versus language development as a choice. In most cases, same people will not do both things. New language obviously requires language developer - it cannot come from tool developer. And ’small’ languages stay with language developers only - they are not attracting tool developers. In some way, it reminds me of the case with many games appearing on the internet. Often you end up with bunch of game programmers and no artists to support them. In some way, programmers are ‘cheaper’ to get for internet projects then modelers/graphic guys. Most probably it is because programming in such cases is fun (you mostly implement what you want), while art assets are work (you need to provide whatever assets are needed for the game). I somehow feel it is similar for new languages - implementing compiler is fun for some guys, adding tools on top of them is a pain nobody wants to touch.

Do I want to bet the project maintenance on the language nobody can be bothered to write tools for? Probably not if the language is fresh. Does anybody remember kiev? I almost made a mistake of writing a big project in that…

]]> By: tranto http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1778 tranto Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:29:02 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1778 Huh? Mama mia! Who is this last tranto? I am the first one, and I dont know what he is talking crud about! Huh? Mama mia! Who is this last tranto?
I am the first one, and I dont know what he is talking crud about!

]]> By: tranto http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1777 tranto Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:26:46 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1777 I just finished having a look.. Bah.. it's all crud all over again. I just finished having a look..

Bah.. it’s all crud all over again.

]]> By: tranto http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1776 tranto Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:15:09 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1776 Erm...I must say I was quite surprised to see that the libraries had gone such a long way since about two years ago :) They still look a bit funny to me, though it's quite worth it having another look at them. Of course, I've forgotten most of the language by now, but I'll be sure to revisit it. I'm taking my words back, for the lack of a better answer, but that's not final yet ;) Erm…I must say I was quite surprised to see that the libraries had gone such a long way since about two years ago :)
They still look a bit funny to me, though it’s quite worth it having another look at them. Of course, I’ve forgotten most of the language by now, but I’ll be sure to revisit it.

I’m taking my words back, for the lack of a better answer, but that’s not final yet ;)

]]> By: Jim Menard http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1775 Jim Menard Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:00:55 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1775 Artur and "ok", Sounds like you are Tool Mavens, not Language Mavens (http://osteele.com/archives/2004/11/ides). Artur and “ok”,

Sounds like you are Tool Mavens, not Language Mavens (http://osteele.com/archives/2004/11/ides).

]]> By: Artur Biesiadowski http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1774 Artur Biesiadowski Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:39:51 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1774 Main issue with Scala I have atm is lack of real integration in any of the big environments (Eclipse/Netbeans/IDEA). Navigation/refactoring possibilities given by java tools these days are really great and I would hate to see people coming back to 'medieval age' of notepad+syntax highlighting. I think Scala is already good enough from the point of language. Now it is time for it to become good from tool support aspect. Main issue with Scala I have atm is lack of real integration in any of the big environments (Eclipse/Netbeans/IDEA). Navigation/refactoring possibilities given by java tools these days are really great and I would hate to see people coming back to ‘medieval age’ of notepad+syntax highlighting.

I think Scala is already good enough from the point of language. Now it is time for it to become good from tool support aspect.

]]> By: Tony Morris http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1773 Tony Morris Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:51:08 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1773 Tranto, I've glimpsed the libraries, I have doubt, lots of it. Care to explain rather than attempt a proof by assertion fallacy? Java cannot and will not be extended to include Scala's features, not ever. Generics don't even come close to Scala's parametric polymorphism and the closures proposal is a sad waste (need I point out their inferiority to Scala?). Tranto,
I’ve glimpsed the libraries, I have doubt, lots of it. Care to explain rather than attempt a proof by assertion fallacy?

Java cannot and will not be extended to include Scala’s features, not ever. Generics don’t even come close to Scala’s parametric polymorphism and the closures proposal is a sad waste (need I point out their inferiority to Scala?).

]]> By: Tony Morris http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1772 Tony Morris Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:48:40 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/scala-262-getting-support-for-java-generics/#comment-1772 Hi Willem, I'm still on the fence there. When I can articulate a conclusion, I will :) Hi Willem,
I’m still on the fence there. When I can articulate a conclusion, I will :)

]]>