Are the other JVM languages actually doing better as they were architected differently from their core, the models for parallelism and/or concurrency is different, both? I would love to hear comments from those more educated than I in JVM esoterics (although I would say the money involved it is worth knowing).
Also, note that this guy's company makes software that directly competes with the JVM's fork/join framework, so he's not exactly an unbiased source.[2]
[1] http://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/parallel-collections/co...
Akka is an actor system framework, so it's extremely well suited for this problem.
Spark can process tremendous amounts of data in parallel, even over hundreds of machines if you really have the iron, and works just as well with just one machine.
You can technically use them both from Java, but being natively Scala libraries, you are really better off switching to Scala if you are going to use them.
[1] http://letitcrash.com/post/17607272336/scalability-of-fork-j...
And I know the increasing popularity of the JVM (if it ever wanted), is that the JVM primitives allow for some threading, which means parallel/concurrent use of processors cores at all. Seeing as people whine about Python and Ruby and GIL, native threads have to be found somewhere while also offering the own risks.
But thanks, I like this site because I can get a programmer's education in "what I worry about and what to avoid unless I am ready" while I learn, not after.
(I have no connection with any selling of concurrency solutions; I use scala (including spark and scalaz-stream) professionally)
In what concerns the typical enterprise, the JVMs and Android are all about Java.
Many use Scala and Clojure as filter for good developers, but the daily work language is still Java.
It's noticeable that some companies are switching back from Scala to Java e.g. LinkedIn, Yammer and after using it for a while it's not hard to see why. It's awfully complex and obtuse in many parts.
Clojure simply isn't that popular and likely won't be.