Hacker News Reader

Comment by markokocic | Hacker News Reader

Well, Scala is not the simplest language, but I'm not sure why having separate .Net backend will make the language more complex. After all, .Net and JVM are pretty similar at its core so that difference between the two shouldn't affect Scala the language, only Scala the compiler.

As for portability between Scala.Net and Scala.JVM programs, it was never the goal of the programs. Of cource, programs using only Scala API should be source portable, but if one ues Java or .Net classes it will not be.

View on HN

Right, you are paraphrasing my worry: there will be .Net and Java flavors Scala. Sure, the syntax will be portable, but programs do not only consist of syntax.

C# in the .Net 1.0 era was very similar to Java. However, most of the domain-specific knowledge is not in the language, but in the associated class library and runtime. Usage patterns evolve with them.

So, under the assumption that Scala.Net will get traction, in three years, people will be hiring Scala.Net and Scala(JVM) programmers. Educational programs will teaching two different flavors. Books will describe two different flavors.

How does this help Scala or the Scala programmer?

(Then there are more questions, such as: what does Scala.Net offer over C# (which is incorporating functional constructs) and F#?)

IIRC 'Programming in Scala' doesn't talk much about the JVM.

While we both agree what would happen, I don't see that as a bad thing. With core language being the same, lots of the skill will be portable.

We have the same situation right now with C/C++, where people are hiring Windows C++ programmers and Linux C++ programmers. It doesn't seem to hurt that much C++ as a language. And C++ has even smaller "standard library" than Scala.

C++ has a smaller standard library, but has easier interoperability with other languages.

I see your point, but I do think it hurts C++ and C++ programmers. Programming C++ in Windows or programming C++ in a gtkmm context are very different. Even the most basic things are not standardized (unicode string handling, etc.). Middle ground does exist (Qt), but it does replace most of the STL and has some very basic weaknesses, like vectors that are limited to 2^31 − 1 elements on common platforms.

So, again, I am seriously interested in what fragmentation buys you when porting to a platform that already has 1 1/2 functional languages, supported by its developer?

Well, there is also a JavaScript compiler in the works and a LLVM backend. Who cares? Adding more supported platforms makes the language and its libraries more stable and mature, because less things are taken for granted.

Things in the Java standard library will work on .NET. Scala, too. If Scala uses .NET classes, this will also work. What's the problem?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com