Re:Why Scala Is Interesting
by bad_user on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @04:49AM
(#1514031)
Unfortunately the article has no content whatsoever.
I expected reasons for why Scala is interesting, not the same opinions that fly around, like how Scala mixes OOP and functional programming with elegance (examples, please!) ... which IMHO, is quite far from the truth as there can be no elegance in a statically typed OOP language with functional features simply because you have a type-system mismatch.
I also take issue with this statement ...
> features like explicit sub- and supertype annotations, covariance and contravariance annotations, etc. which goes beyond what I've seen in other OO languages
... is quite false. Even if Scala's generics are quite advanced, they are still useless for offering anything resembling parametric polymorphism (unless you count Manifests from Scala 2.8, which are an ugly hack offering only limited relief ... but it's not like in Scala the features are orthogonal, so at least in that regard it has consistency).
You can paint a crow in so many ways, but it's still a crow.
I expected reasons for why Scala is interesting, not the same opinions that fly around, like how Scala mixes OOP and functional programming with elegance (examples, please!) ... which IMHO, is quite far from the truth as there can be no elegance in a statically typed OOP language with functional features simply because you have a type-system mismatch.
I also take issue with this statement ...
> features like explicit sub- and supertype annotations, covariance and contravariance annotations, etc. which goes beyond what I've seen in other OO languages
... is quite false. Even if Scala's generics are quite advanced, they are still useless for offering anything resembling parametric polymorphism (unless you count Manifests from Scala 2.8, which are an ugly hack offering only limited relief ... but it's not like in Scala the features are orthogonal, so at least in that regard it has consistency).
You can paint a crow in so many ways, but it's still a crow.