This is a lie. He says the compiler implementation is a mess. he's still a contributor and involved in the language.
Second, your argument is basically you aren't smart enough to write/read scala. I love it. I have more faith in the OP.
Not everyone needs idiotic languages that ignore 30 years of programming research to coddle their fragile ego. We're not all like you.
He says the compiler implementation is a mess. he's still a contributor and involved in the language.
Of course your compiler is going to be an unmaintainable jungle when you treat the language itself the way most others leave for standard library or even separate projects.
Golang does the opposite, and lives in splendor. Compilation times are imperceptible. Syntax is simple. Standard libraries are solid. Third-party projects are importable via git repositories. Golang is about keeping it tight, staying out of your way, helping you where it counts most, and trying to minimize the downsides.
Not everyone needs idiotic languages that ignore 30 years of programming research to coddle their fragile ego. We're not all like you.
Second, your argument is basically you aren't smart enough to write/read scala.
I'm happy to see that Java programmers can have a cleaner language and some nice functional features. I wish they'd spec things out with more forethought and reigned in the idioms.
If I write a sort algorithm, I'm going to have to reimplement that x number of times for each custom collection I write. You think this makes for a simple app? No. It makes for a convoluted mess. You can have a lot of features in a language and rely less on custom frameworks and duplicated bloated code, or you can prefer the inverse.
Are you familiar with the advantages of parametric polymoprhism? If you think the job is to ship features that work, you should google this, along with theorems for free.
Are you familiar with the advantages of parametric polymoprhism?