Re: [scala-language] The cake’s problem, dotty des ign and the approach to modularity.

On 08/22/2015 03:05 AM, Shelby wrote:
> I agreed with all the range of discussion at the following HN thread. In 
> particular, I want to call attention to the following post which emphasizes 
> that Scala is not sufficiently simplified and unified. Scala 3 with the DOT 
> (Dotty) proposal is attempting to make some headway, and my position is to 
> try to remove subclassing (retain subtyping) and replace with a superior 
> paradigm which is more unified, which will make the calculus more provable, 
> will make type inference more simplifed and complete, and will remove the 
> CAKE pattern and other warts which are giving Scala a bad rap while also 
> slam dunking it to massive adoption...
> 

I think you're tilting at windmills. As I understand it, part of the
raison d'être of Scala is that it is a research vehicle[1] and that "how
to do subclassing right" is/was a big part of that research. Instead of
tilting, perhaps you should look into some of the more... ahem...
polished functional languages? Like O'Caml or Haskell?

For example, it seems that much of what you want is already provided by
the row polymorphism support in O'Caml...? (Btw, O'Caml also has an
object system which is structural, i.e. non-nominal, but ironically --
given the name of the language -- almost nobody used it last I heard...
which was quite a long while ago, admittedly.)

Regards,

[1] Well, at least it started out that way. I guess things might have
changed?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scala-language" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.