Java > Scala

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-11-30 03:41, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "bearophile"<bearophileHUGS at lycos.com>  wrote in message
> news:jb417r$2dhj$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> A recently written report from a firm that has switched back from Scala to
>> Java:
>>
>> https://raw.github.com/gist/1406238/72ade1a89004a9a7d705b00cfd14b90b2b6a26bd/gistfile1.txt
>>
>
> Just skimmed through that. Some interesting stuff. Having never touched
> Scala (although I've been meaning to at least look into it more...), it
> sounds like D is way ahead in many ways. Although it's possible that could
> just be my own bias from being very familiar with and accustomed to D.
>
> I wonder to what extent the inefficiencies he mentioned (such as the lambdas
> being sugar for anon classes) could be due to the JVM itself. Or if the
> reason is primarily something else, such as something about Scala's internal
> design or just its implementation. Maybe Scala tries to maximize
> compatibility with Java, and if so, maybe that's the main underlying cause?
> Or again, maybe just inherent attributes of the JVM itself (although that
> would run contrary to what I've heard many people claim about the modern
> JVM)?

I think it has something to do with Scala trying to be compatible with Java.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg