6 ms·

Kotlin hasn't even been released yet, and it looks just like Scala.

danieldk 13y ago
It 'looks just like Scala'? It is not even a functional programming language. Let alone that it supports implicits, general operator overloading (operator overloading is very limited in Kotlin), existential types, etc. In fact Kotlin looks mostly like Java with some additions to make everyone's lives easier (closures, extension methods, data classes).
- pkolaczk 13y ago
  It managed to copy almost every single Scala feature and is not even functional? Impressive.
- pron 13y ago
  Kotlin is certainly in the "Java philosophy" camp (alongside Go, Dart), and yet achieves most if not all of Scala's original goals (though, unlike Scala, it is not a superset of Haskell, Lisp, Javascript and Java, so if you want to write Lisp, Haskell and Javascript, and insist on having all three compiled by the same compiler, you should stick with Scala :)). I have high hopes for Kotlin, and can certainly see my future projects being written in a combination of Kotlin and Clojure.
  - kenbot 13y ago
    A superset of ... what the? Why do you keep trotting out this garbage thread after thread? Every language takes influences from others, if that's what you meant. Scala is influenced by Java, C# and Haskell, in that order. Kotlin is influenced by Scala and Java, etc. The "superset" and "Lisp, Haskell and Javascript in the same compiler" comments are unhinged from the reality of any language I recognise.
  - joostdevries 13y ago
    I think I read that phrase from you before on nyc. I think it's a misleading catchprase. For me and I think most other Scala devs Scala is a statically typed FP-OO language. So Haskell doesn't do it justice because Haskells insistence on purity makes it impractical for me in getting stuff done. And Java doesn't do it justice because Java is held back by its history. "Superset of" makes it sounds like a weakness and overwrought. In my experience it offers a sweat spot of the best features of static FP and OO. So what about your mention of Lisp and Javascript? Unless you're deep in some framework you don't need to know about the support for macros and structural typing. I've ignored those two so far because I haven't needed them (yet?). And I haven't felt they were in my way. So where you say "a superset of Haskell, Lisp, Javascript and Java" I say "the sweet spot of the best features of static FP and OO for the real world. Leveraging the JVM ecosystem".
    - asdasf 13y ago
      >So Haskell doesn't do it justice because Haskells insistence on purity makes it impractical for me in getting stuff done I know this will sound snarky, but I have to ask: have you tried haskell before? I only ever hear that line of reasoning from people who have never used it (and I was once one of them, using that very same reasoning to choose a multi-paradigm language). We bailed on scala for haskell precisely because it is pure and has a better type system.
      - joostdevries 13y ago
        "Useful for getting stuff done" is a point that Erik Meijer literally has made. F.i. you find him explaining his point of view on side effects and imperative programming here. And how he progressed from "fundamentalist" functional programming to "the real world is imperative & embrace side effects". http://youtu.be/a-RAltgH8tw?t=11m1s http://youtu.be/a-RAltgH8tw?t=11m1s You can't say that Erik Meijer doesn't know Haskell. :-)
        codygman 13y ago
        The fact that Erik Meijer says that imperative programming is the way to go for the "real world" is deserving of attention, but it doesn't empirically mean "all 'real world' software is better created with the imperative paradigm". From the sound of it this is his first job in the "real world"? If that's the case, perhaps he just hasn't seen patterns of applying his current functional knowledge in a way thats better than the best practices from the imperative realm. How do we know after a few years he won't switch (provided he was a fundamentalist functional programmer) back to saying "now that I have a better understanding of 'The real world' I can see patterns applied with the functional paradigm are better than the best practices I've been using from the imperative paradigm."? I believe this is the reason to keep an ear open for authority figures, but not to take everything they say empirically, especially when it's in contradiction with a position they've held much longer. Apologies for the rambling, I was just typing out what came to mind.
  - asdasf 13y ago
    >though, unlike Scala, it is not a superset of Haskell, Lisp, Javascript and Java If you think scala is a superset of those, then you either really don't know scala at all, or you have an incredibly low opinion of all the languages you listed.

It 'looks just like Scala'? It is not even a functional programming language. Let alone that it supports implicits, general operator overloading (operator overloading is very limited in Kotlin), existential types, etc. In fact Kotlin looks mostly like Java with some additions to make everyone's lives easier (closures, extension methods, data classes).

pkolaczk 13y ago
It managed to copy almost every single Scala feature and is not even functional? Impressive.
pron 13y ago
Kotlin is certainly in the "Java philosophy" camp (alongside Go, Dart), and yet achieves most if not all of Scala's original goals (though, unlike Scala, it is not a superset of Haskell, Lisp, Javascript and Java, so if you want to write Lisp, Haskell and Javascript, and insist on having all three compiled by the same compiler, you should stick with Scala :)). I have high hopes for Kotlin, and can certainly see my future projects being written in a combination of Kotlin and Clojure.
- kenbot 13y ago
  A superset of ... what the? Why do you keep trotting out this garbage thread after thread? Every language takes influences from others, if that's what you meant. Scala is influenced by Java, C# and Haskell, in that order. Kotlin is influenced by Scala and Java, etc. The "superset" and "Lisp, Haskell and Javascript in the same compiler" comments are unhinged from the reality of any language I recognise.
- joostdevries 13y ago
  I think I read that phrase from you before on nyc. I think it's a misleading catchprase. For me and I think most other Scala devs Scala is a statically typed FP-OO language. So Haskell doesn't do it justice because Haskells insistence on purity makes it impractical for me in getting stuff done. And Java doesn't do it justice because Java is held back by its history. "Superset of" makes it sounds like a weakness and overwrought. In my experience it offers a sweat spot of the best features of static FP and OO. So what about your mention of Lisp and Javascript? Unless you're deep in some framework you don't need to know about the support for macros and structural typing. I've ignored those two so far because I haven't needed them (yet?). And I haven't felt they were in my way. So where you say "a superset of Haskell, Lisp, Javascript and Java" I say "the sweet spot of the best features of static FP and OO for the real world. Leveraging the JVM ecosystem".
  - asdasf 13y ago
    >So Haskell doesn't do it justice because Haskells insistence on purity makes it impractical for me in getting stuff done I know this will sound snarky, but I have to ask: have you tried haskell before? I only ever hear that line of reasoning from people who have never used it (and I was once one of them, using that very same reasoning to choose a multi-paradigm language). We bailed on scala for haskell precisely because it is pure and has a better type system.
    - joostdevries 13y ago
      "Useful for getting stuff done" is a point that Erik Meijer literally has made. F.i. you find him explaining his point of view on side effects and imperative programming here. And how he progressed from "fundamentalist" functional programming to "the real world is imperative & embrace side effects". http://youtu.be/a-RAltgH8tw?t=11m1s http://youtu.be/a-RAltgH8tw?t=11m1s You can't say that Erik Meijer doesn't know Haskell. :-)
      - codygman 13y ago
        The fact that Erik Meijer says that imperative programming is the way to go for the "real world" is deserving of attention, but it doesn't empirically mean "all 'real world' software is better created with the imperative paradigm". From the sound of it this is his first job in the "real world"? If that's the case, perhaps he just hasn't seen patterns of applying his current functional knowledge in a way thats better than the best practices from the imperative realm. How do we know after a few years he won't switch (provided he was a fundamentalist functional programmer) back to saying "now that I have a better understanding of 'The real world' I can see patterns applied with the functional paradigm are better than the best practices I've been using from the imperative paradigm."? I believe this is the reason to keep an ear open for authority figures, but not to take everything they say empirically, especially when it's in contradiction with a position they've held much longer. Apologies for the rambling, I was just typing out what came to mind.
- asdasf 13y ago
  >though, unlike Scala, it is not a superset of Haskell, Lisp, Javascript and Java If you think scala is a superset of those, then you either really don't know scala at all, or you have an incredibly low opinion of all the languages you listed.