|
Re: Ruby and Scala
|
Posted: Sep 9, 2006 4:08 AM
|
|
> I found trying to read the Scala docs painful, because it > is upward compatible with Java, so there are all the Java > things and then new Scala things intertwingled with them. > IMHO they should have stopped trying to make arbitrary > y Java programs compile as Scala.
I am not sure what you mean. Certainly, Scala is not upwards compatible with Java; no Java program will compile with the Scala compiler. However, Scala tries to interact smoothly with Java on the bytecode level. There's a price to pay in that we have to be able to somehow interpret every construct in Java's libraries as if it was a (possibly differently spelled) Scala concept. Maybe that's what you were referring to?
I agree that this is a burden, in particularly for the people who have to specify and implement the language. But on the other hand, users get full access to the huge set of Java libraries and frameworks. Scala is intended specifically for the JVM environment, rather than competing with more independent languages such as Ruby, Python, Smalltalk, OCaml, Scheme or Haskell (which I personally find all rather nice). It's also specifically intended to be statically typed, but that's another debate...
|
|