|
|
|
|
|
|
by llemiengre
4284 days ago
|
|
|
Your criteria make it impossible to use a language that came 'out of academia'. The problem is of course that there is no serious jvm language that can really fill the niche that scala has created. If you look at the top libraries/frameworks that are build on top of Scala: akka, play, lift, slick, spark they are radical improvements if you compare them with their java counterparts (if they exist), they deal with very hard problems and manage to make the problem significantly easier to handle. btw, these libraries are developed by industry veterans & all of them have commercial support. For success stories go here: https://typesafe.com/company/casestudies |
|
|
Well, it would be silly to make such a broad, and hypothetical generalization, but as far as the "academic" languages I've seen, let's say a lot of caution is required before adoption in the industry. See my answer to tome.
> If you look at the top libraries/frameworks that are build on top of Scala...
While I can dispute your claim about most of the libraries you've mentioned, I can wholeheartedly agree that some Scala libraries provide much prettier APIs than Java libraries can. Still, the same can be said about C++ APIs vs. C APIs, and in spite of their elegance, a lot of large projects wish they had stuck with uglier C APIs, because most benefits come with costs attached. I'm not saying that Scala doesn't have any benefits -- it's got plenty. I'm just saying that in the case of Scala, its costs far outweigh its benefits.
The interesting question to me is, can we extract some of the goodness Scala brings without paying so dearly for it? The question is yet to be answered satisfactorily, but I think languages like Kotlin (or Swift, which, from what I've seen, looks very similar to Kotlin) show that this might indeed be possible.