Also, you should need no more reason to avoid Scala than this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS1lpKBMkgg
If you're interested in Scala, learn Haskell. It's faster, its design is re-enforced with proven mathematical concepts, and it doesn't have the worst syntax ever.
Nonsense.
You do realize there are quite a few commercial JVMs that generate native code AOT like any of the referenced languages, right?
Also, I think a lot of organizations would never approve using these in production, too likely that behavior will differ vs Oracle's or the OpenJDK VM's, the company won't be around in a few years, etc., and the gcj is very out of date from what I gather.
I don't know, but I guess enterprises do trust Aicas, Aonix, IBM, Excelsior and quite a few others.
What are you talking about!? Have you even looked at either?
Nimrod:
for i in 1..100:
if i mod 15 == 0:
echo("FizzBuzz")
elif i mod 3 == 0:
echo("Fizz")
elif i mod 5 == 0:
echo("Buzz")
else:
echo(i)
for (x <- 1 to 100) println(
(x % 3, x % 5) match {
case (0, 0) => "FizzBuzz"
case (0, _) => "Fizz"
case (_, 0) => "Buzz"
case _ => x
})
> fast Haskell and easy/safe Haskell tend not to overlap as much as one would like
Not even remotely true. Where did you even get that idea?
I'm sorry, but the only people I've heard say this are those who are slightly open-minded about Haskell but truly believe it usually can't be remotely as efficient as imperative alternatives. None of the people I've heard make these statements have had even a few months experience writing Haskell.
If you can qualify this, I'd be pretty interested. Or if you've had an experience with Haskell that led you to believe this, I'd like to see if there is another solution.
I'm very interested in these limitations people always talk about with Haskell, but none of them have held up so far. I've been evaluating Haskell for a while and am very interested in testing any limitations you've faced.