Michele Simionato: > I don't like that. Scala was designed with the idea of putting > together the two worlds, by I think the result was to get the > complications of both worlds.
But some other people may like it, and it's a design experiment worth doing. Every programming paradigm has advantages, so it's normal for people to try to design language that have the best of different worlds. Even if Scala is a failure (and I don't think it is), it's good to keep trying to design a mixed language (Like Python, that mixes procedural, some OOP and a bit of functional stiles. It has not pattern matching stile (Mathematica, OcaML), logic-inferential style (Prolog), constraint style (Oz, Mozart), data flow style, generic programming (C++, D), etc). Today lot of people understand that functional languages have advantages, so they are trying to created hybrids (Scala, F#, D V.2, etc), and they may succeed only trying. The purpose is of course to create a language that isn't too much complex, but has those advantages anyway. I presume Scala is quite less complex than C++ anyway. >Programming languages should be designed not by piling feature on top of >feature, but by removing the weaknesses and restrictions that make additional >features appear necessary. -- William Clinger< I think it's false, but it requires me lot of space to explain why. In few words: Perl is more useful than Scheme if you have to solve a lot of practical computational problems, despite Scheme looks much more nicer. Bye, bearophile -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
