What does /prog/ think of Scala?

Scala would be nice if it wasn't tied to the JVM. Here's hoping Scala/LLVM gets anywhere.

Same as >>2.
Also, I hope it will replace Java.

What's the problem with the JVM? If it's performance is there any reason to believe Scala/LLVM would be significantly faster? If you don't like using Java libraries (I don't blame you) there's always JNA.

>>4
Tail calls.

>>4
It's loaded with tons of legacy cruft, various hacks to maintain backwards compatibility, broken code paths ( http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2011/07/28/dont-use-java-7-for-anything/ ), only targets: x86, x86-64, arm, power, and power64 and only on mainstream operating systems (so much for "compile once, run anywhere"); doesn't have native support for unsigned integer types, does not have native support for simd vector types (LLVM does!), only supports a heavy-grained sequentially consistent memory model which impacts the scalability of parallel code, no tail call optimizations, and the list goes on.

If Scala could be freed from the tyranny of the JVM, it would be decent. I'd consider moving towards it for certain things that I currently do in C/C++.

>>6
x86, x86-64, arm, power, and power64
Aside from MIPS, there's nothing else.  Fuck off with your ``hipster'' architecture, faggot.

What the fuck is the deal with tail calls? Nobody uses recursion.

>>8
Cleaner, modular code.

>>8
Leaner, more optimized code. Even C/C++ compilers can do compile-time tail-call optimization!

check 'em

Scala compiler in fact do tail-call optimization

>>6
>It's loaded with tons of legacy cruft, various hacks to maintain backwards compatibility

even kernel has legacy stuff and I'm sure it has even more hacks to maintain backwards compatibility

btw Scala compiles to CLR but I don't give a damn about that

Who needs Scala, when there is Clojure?

>>14
http://4-ch.net/code/kareha.pl/1223551787/6
http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1253894235/1

Also is my memory fucked or did /prog/ really hate on rich hickey & clojure a year or two ago?

>>4
What's the problem with the JVM?
Oracle is killing Java, they are just leeching off it as a patent troll

http://xhamster.com/movies/779781/cute_japanese_girl_cosplay.html

>>4
What's the problem with the JVM?

If you need to ask, you wouldn't understand my answer

>>18
Say it anyway. This is /prog/ and your audience is guaranteed to not be programmers.

>>19
Disregard this, I was bluffing.

>>15

the opinion of dilettantes is worth nothing. real lisp programmers like dan weinreb and guy steele have already embraced clojure as the future of lisp.

I use scala at work and clojure at home. The difference between the two languages is huge, but clojure is always going to be niche because it is simply too alien for most programmers. programmers are lazy, and love familiarity above all else. Lisp really shines at running sophisticated algorithms over complex data sets, and is probably overkill for most of the tasks that we find ourselves doing. But if your goal requires pushing the machine beyond it's limit, I implore you to use the best tools you can find.

IMPLORE ME TO USE THE BEST ANUS YOU CAN FIND

the opinion of dilettantes is worth nothing. real lisp programmers like [list of dilttantes]
HIBT?

>>14

Clojure doesn't have static typing

>>24
Static typing is useless, it only unnecessarily burdens the programmer, increases development time, and yields no benefit.

>>25
clap clap clap clap

>>25
without a type system you can't really compose functions

>>27
?

(lambda (f g)
  (lambda (x)
    (f (g x))))

>>26
back to /g/ please.

>>28
(fn (f g)
 (fn (x)
  (f (g x))))