Is this not desirable? The wider the definition of a constructor is, the less you can determine from looking at the construction of a resource/variable/whatever. When you delve into e.g. the creation of an ORM this becomes extremely important because it has to reason about data constraints across multiple initializations.
It seems that you now accept that in fact the two designs are dissimilar, and that Ceylon's is significantly more powerful.
So, before continuing this discussion, do you think it would appropriate to start by apologizing to my team?
Just so we don't get off on the wrong foot?
No, I demanded you reference a similar language to actually compare the benefits of your changes. If you do, I suspect you'll find you gain virtually nothing.
> Much of the rest of the work seems to mirror what Scala did several years ago, and this seems to nearly replicate that.
I have already demolished this claim on this thread, as you very well understand.
I personally make it a policy to admit error when I err. It's up to you to decide whether this is also your policy, or whether you prefer goalpost-shifting and prevarication.
> No, I demanded you reference a similar language to actually compare the benefits of your changes.
I make it a firm policy to not talk about other new languages when I blog about Ceylon, because whenever I have mentioned Scala in the past, even just in passing, I have found myself the subject of quite vicious personal attacks. I'm going to continue with that policy, this thread notwithstanding. But thanks for your feedback anyway.
I'm sorry to hear that. That's certainly not a productive way to have a conversation, though, and it's rather confusing you'd try to argue for the benefits of your hard work without making them in terms of languages people actually use.