News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:True Scala complexity by Peaker on Monday January 09, 2012 @06:39PM (#3444890)
> Even with the flag disabled, Scala will be a more powerful language than any of the alternatives I can think of.

How is Scala more powerful than Haskell, Agda, or Coq?

Re:True Scala complexity by gclaramunt on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @12:19PM (#3447846)
I guess it depends on the definition of "powerful". Scala unlike Haskell, has first class modules ( aka OO ) and unlike Coq (And Agda, I presume) is turing-complete. ( Not that those things really matter to make an awesome language :) ) But for mature statically typed langs running JVM, Scala is the most powerful ...
Re:True Scala complexity by Peaker on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @06:14PM (#3449585)
Well, Scala has advantages and disadvantages over Haskell, but I wouldn't say it is more "powerful" than Haskell.

Consider the implementation of a properly lazy "const" function in Haskell:

  const x _ = x
And in Scala:

http://apocalisp.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/a-proper-constant-...

Not sure about Coq, but Agda is Turing Complete (you just need to turn off termination checks) and Epigram also supports general recursion as well as structural recursion with total functions.

Re:True Scala complexity by gclaramunt on Wednesday January 11, 2012 @08:55AM (#3451735)
Coq is not turing-complete, but IMHO, completeness is overrated :)

I was trying to point that the "more powerful" criteria is pretty subjective.

The OP said "more powerful than the alternatives", that usually means "runs in the JVM"... and AFAIK, Jaskell or CAL are far from mature.