premium-concern

That paragraph sounds pretty uninformed. I wouldn't take it too seriously.

I'm not sure your assumptions support your conclusions here, especially your believe that a JIT compiler wouldn't make inroads on the slow C code being executed.

The biggest problem of Python is that it lacks the experts that could write those fast runtimes, and it fails to attract them after the Python leaders declared the GIL to be a non-issue.

> It has too much features.

Examples?

It doesn't seem to have worked out for F# as they have recently adopted what Scala has been doing for years.

The pattern of throwing exceptions for operations deemed "unsupported", an API that requires massive workarounds to keep alive in Java 10, no support for immutable collections, unmodifiable views are a complete clusterfuck, no persistent collections etc.

How is that impacted by a faster implementation technique?

Are you arguing that some people rely on ArraySegment being slow?

Yes, C# really prefers adding two dozen special cases and language features instead of providing one generic way of achieving something like in Scala. :-(

So instead of improving the implementation of ArraySegment they just add yet another way of doing it?

This is of course expected for languages which keep piling up stuff but still disappointing.

Yes, Scala is a great choice.

I'd just use

  ModuleID(organization = "com.foocorp", name = "foo", revision = "1.2")

> That means with out loosing comments or spaces you can have scripts go and rewrite hundreds of pom files or even just do a sanity check to make sure that they are consistent.

I'd rather just change a single file instead.

Scala is light-years ahead of Kotlin.

Kotlin spends a lot of time promising things and talking about things they plan to ship – and then never ship it.

Scala devs are honest, tell you exactly what's planned and then ship it. Tooling is great, the library system is amazing, and people get things done.

If you are happy with Java, keep using it (or try Kotlin – which is nothing more than a slightly less verbose Java). If you want a better language–use Scala.

I have never seen this documentation and it seems to be wildly outdated.

Which issues did you experience with Android Studio?

> What about the Slick team? Also growing?

Different projects require different approaches. The introduction of the community process added 5 new maintainers and the merge of Slick and FreeSlick caused a lot of activity and contributions, so I'm pretty happy.

> Are you saying two new compiler engineers were hired by Lightbend?

Yes.

> Because if they're working on Lagom that's a different (mostly Java) story https://github.com/lagom/lagom

No.

The they have added two additional people to the Scala team over the last few months. Everyone knows they suck at communicating, but I rather care about actions, and the actions I have seen are good.

Scala devs have the tools to make sure it doesn't happen, Python didn't.

If you feel that something is missing people would likely be happy to receive bug reports/feature requests.

> What are "all the things" they reinvented that were discard in Scala?

Extension methods, properties, special syntax for everything, final by default, short constructor syntax, trying to put band-aid around Java's broken collection types, ...

> I'm not saying Scala is in bad hands or a dead language. But when a project's creator looses interest and moves to different things, well, it's usually not the best sign for that project.

"looses interest" ... "moves to different things" ... WTF? How can people come up with this FUD?

Scala2 and Dotty are two dialects of the same language, just as ScalaJS and Scala Native are dialects of the language.

Keep calm and carry on.

Yes, it's like they reinvent all the things that were considered but discarded in Scala and believe they found something nobody ever thought about before.

The plan is to get the feature sets closer together, not to diverge.

Zero. People are actively aware of what happened in Python 2/3.

The good thing is that Scala is a typed language, so they can

a) provide tooling for migrating code

b) compile things and get clear information about how much differences there are

I think somebody said that necessary lines of change from Scala 2 -> Scala 3 should be below 0.1% to be acceptable.

Ok, so if I understand you correctly: you claim that your failure to contribute anything of substance should be blamed on your inability to read and your lack of any knowledge of the topic.

Well enough, sir.

Your idea of centralizing things into a module assumes you have control over all code ever written.

This might be true for the 90% of Haskell that is created and abandoned by PhDs writing their theses, but if you look at other language communities: People like to use a library from time to time.

I have already mentioned three languages that haven't followed Haskell's broken mess, while you have failed to produce even a single bit of information, while constantly crying foul at everything you don't like?

That's just amazingly hypocritical, but I guess the tactic of "blame other people for your own behaviour to make it look like tu-quoque if they respond" hasn't gotten old for you yet?

So basically what you are saying is "Haskell has Haskell's typeclasses!".

That's a yuuuuge amount of languages that follow "Haskell"'s design! (Maybe you should start counting Haskell-to-X compilers separately to pad the number "1" a bit?)

I think people have been including jQuery just fine for the last decade.

I think "strictly superior" makes sense in the way that Scala was never designed or intended to be a worse-is-better language like Java and people were willing to make that happen by evolving the language. It was never intended to be a Java-with-more-concise-syntax unlike some other newer languages.

If something was clearly worse, it would have been changed years ago already. That some design is still there might suggest that some people just have a different minority opinion on some aspects. (Assuming that "strictly superior" does not mean "100% of devs agree 100% that this is 100% better than Java".)

Why would you create a new language and then keep a huge part of what developers interact with on a daily basis in such a broken shape as in Java? (Or rack up a massive amount of complexity and break your typesystem by trying to put lipstick on the Java collection pig? (Kotlin).)

> they just make more of a fuss about it in their marketing

This succinctly describes many aspects of Kotlin.