Re:Is Scala really more complicated than Java?
by rwmj on Friday September 18, 2009 @02:36PM
(#830837)
OCaml's syntax is denser than C. There is less to type when you write f 1 2 3 vs f (1, 2, 3), and it gets even better once you look at the larger features like function definitions.
Bit surprised you think Lisp is more dense. I just wrote a Lisp compiler in Lisp, and found it more verbose than ML (although only by a little bit). I find the lack of syntax in Lisp very annoying, particularly since it's not necessary -- you can write macros over an AST, which is how camlp4 works.
Especially in things like Scala; ':=' for assignment is from Pascal, and Ocaml, to me, feels like a really verbose Lisp.
Programmers are much less likely to pick up a new tool if its syntax is so radically different from what they normally work with that there's a steep learning curve just to become accustomed to it.
Sure, both languages have some interesting features, but there really isn't anything driving the change beyond that. Scala lacks a decent web application framework (Lift is rubbish, I'm sorry), and they seem to be targeting that space. OCaml is interesting, but I don't see any major new technology driving its adoption.