5 ms·

Actually I think Dart has a lot of benefits in terms of syntax compared to Java. I am working with java since 2001, so I can tell. If you are interested to brie

• frowaway001 12y ago
  Well, comparing with Java is aiming a bit low, isn't it? Compare Dart's "shorter alternative" of a bog-standard class ... // Shorter alternative class Person { String name; // parameters prefixed by 'this.' will assign to // instance variables automatically Person(this.name); } ... with something more modern: class Person(val name: String) // Done.
  • grobmeier 12y ago
    Maybe I am old-fashioned, but declaration of member variables in like in the second example makes me afraid. :-) Whats that for a language btw?
    • frowaway001 12y ago
      Scala. C# 6 also copied it (although it doesn't really look that clean, because of their incompatible mess in fields vs. methods vs. properties).
      • grobmeier 12y ago
        Scala did never grew in me. But I heard its getting better once you made the first few weeks.
        • frowaway001 12y ago
          Yes. It's probably the same weird confusion I had, too ... because all "experts on the Internet" complain about Scala being a kitchen-sink of features, but if you actually walk into it, you just wonder how they managed to reduce and condense features into such a small, well-designed orthogonal core ... and wonder why no one else did it before. In hindsight, Scala is much smaller than C#, F#, C++, OCaml, etc. while still being more expressive and comfortable to use.
  • spankalee 12y ago
    Let's remove the comments for a more visually fair comparison: class Person { String name; Person(this.name); } vs class Person(val name: String) Ok, you save a line. I don't think that's a big deal. Also, the Dart version is very clear about what's a field or not. The first example I found of Scala classes on their site is this: class Point(xc: Int, yc: Int) { var x: Int = xc var y: Int = yc def move(dx: Int, dy: Int) { x = x + dx y = y + dy } override def toString(): String = "(" + x + ", " + y + ")"; } With text that says `x` and `y` are the fields. What about `xc` and `yc`, I thought those were the fields? Another thing I like about Dart is that the possible variations on the constructors fall into place, consistently: No constructor args: class Person { String name; } Optional constructor args: class Person { String name; Person({this.name}); } Super call: class Person extends Animal { String name; Person(this.name) : super() ; } The short Scala form may do that as well for all I know,
    • frowaway001 12y ago
      > Let's remove the comments for a more visually fair comparison: It was not meant to be unfair, I just took an existing example. If the Dart devs thought they needed the comments to make it clear what happens, then it's a decision I respect. > Ok, you save a line. Three. > With text that says `x` and `y` are the fields. What about `xc` and `yc`, I thought those were the fields? For standard classes, the compiler just does what you tell him: If you write that you want a "val", you get an instance value, if you write a "var", you get an instance variable, if you write nothing (like in this case), you will usually get ... nothing. That's perfectly clear in my book. > Another thing I like about Dart is that the possible variations on the constructors fall into place, consistently: In most languages, allowing a constructor which forgets to initialize things is considered a compiler/language bug. (And having more than one constructor is pretty much considered to be an anti-pattern in Scala anyway.) > Super call: In Scala: class Person(val name: String) extends Animal
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]