I certainly hope so, since we always planned to replace JBoss Modules with Jigsaw when that becomes possible. But we still don't know if the Jigsaw module system will be made available for all consumers or just for the JDK itself.
> If your type was written by someone who didn't care to implement Comparable, bad luck! - If the type has a Comparable implementation which differs from what you need, bad luck, too! - You need the type to be comparable in multiple ways? Again, bad luck!
Um, you've totally missed the point. Go and have another look.
And sure, since you bring it up, we can certainly add a version of max() that accepts a comparator function. It would be a method of Iterable, probably.
And sorry, but I can't imagine why I would want or need typeclasses to solve that problem. Sure, I could use typeclasses, if I were a solution in search of a problem ;)
> I'm not sure that there is a large difference.
You can't abstract over tuple and function -arity in Scala. So yes, there's a big difference. Look at the definition of compose() in Ceylon.
> and performance (no pointer chasing, all values are just a method call away).
At the VM level, tuples are represented as arrays. So there is no real performance penalty.
> Anyway, if one wanted tuples-as-linked-lists, one could just use Shapeless' HList library, which has a few benefits over Ceylon's tuples, too, as far as I see:
In Ceylon, without any macro library, you can write:
value tuple = [1, "str", 42.31];
String str = tuple[1]; //totally possible in Ceylon
Sure, _of course_ you're going to find stuff in Scala that you can't do in Ceylon. Scala is one of the most huge and complex and feature-rich languages _ever_! But you'll also find plenty of stuff you can do in Ceylon that you can't do in Scala, if you care to look.