network profile
| bio | website | tmorris.net |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 2 years, 7 months |
| seen | Jun 19 '12 at 8:16 | |
| stats | profile views | 189 |
|
Apr 17 |
comment |
What's the difference between Scala and Red Hat's Ceylon language? Nobody ever claimed that somebody claimed that scala is purely functional. I know what the scala brochure says about "supporting the functional paradigm", but I also know many claims that are wrong. Among many hoaxes and a particularly funny one, Scala is also not a "hybrid." I'm not sure why repeating bullshit at me, that we all know I have seen, is expected to persuade. Why not study the claims to determine for yourself? |
|
Apr 13 |
comment |
What's the difference between Scala and Red Hat's Ceylon language? If you guys ever try to "make extensive use of immutability" with Scala, you'll find it falls to its knees, crippled, begging for mercy. Though, less so, than for other programming environments. Honestly, give it a crack. Don't believe the hype yo! |
|
Apr 13 |
comment |
What's the difference between Scala and Red Hat's Ceylon language? Never thought it would be, but Cedric is (mostly) right! |
|
Apr 13 |
comment |
What's the difference between Scala and Red Hat's Ceylon language? Scala does not make extensive use of immutability at all, but does so only in contrast to other contexts that are extensively anti-immutability. It absolutely does not match any valid definition of a functional language. Not even close. |
|
Apr 13 |
comment |
What's the difference between Scala and Red Hat's Ceylon language? Scala is not functional. Not even close. |
|
Apr 13 |
comment |
What's the difference between Scala and Red Hat's Ceylon language? Implicit dictionary passing and higher-kinds put scala way ahead, but I think you forgot the most important of all -- unification of call-by-name values with values. In short, one language is for "lolz", the other is for doing practical work. |
