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

Thanks I'll try to look at that. I don't know ML well and struggle with its 
syntax so it will slow me down, but I should see if that does already 
provide the functionality. Necessary of course for writing a white paper 
and citing prior art.

Even then there are other variables at play such as:

* tool support
* JVM interopt
* JS compilation (I must have this!)
* fugly syntax of OCaml (imo)
* community
* momentum

I believe Scala heads can be convinced subclassing is an anti-pattern but 
even if not, it appears Scala is headed towards being a modular platform 
for language experimentation with the move towards a TASTY layer.

I sense that Scala will be the place where there economies-of-scale form. 
Maybe not. Need to consider a lot of details and I am 1000 miles up in the 
air right now due to other priorities.


On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 6:43:53 PM UTC+8, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
>
> 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.