Sure (and what is ironic about it?), but what I am claiming it that it's not overly useful in a heavily imperative/OO context, given that C++/Java/C# programmers have gone many years without it.
Then why it's added to C#, C++ (gcc 4.4 at least does have it), etc? Are you sure developers do it because they all are mad?
Eclipse does a good enough job at filling out generics right now for me.
Yup. Basically you are using type inference - just implemented not in compiler as sane people are doing but in editor. And it produces tons of useless clutter because it's implemented in wrong place.
We can't use GC in the lower level components of the GNOME stack because then if you wanted to use a higher level language (like OCaml!) on them, you'd have two different garbage collectors in the same process which is a recipe for disaster.
Why is it a disaster? You can combine compiled Java code (GCJ) and Scheme code (Guile) in a single process - and everything "just works". Sure, it's not exactly super-fast (you are scanning some small regions of memory twice), but no other problems are shown...
Anyways, you seem to be essentially saying that because Vala isn't OCaml it must be broken, when there are actual engineering tradeoffs that you're not recognizing.
Nope. If you want to see the language designed around existing OO-system, but which is done right - take look on Groovy. It's not perfect (no language is perfect) but it adds a lot of usefull features to Java while reusing the same JVM. Sure, JVM does have richer set of features if you compare it with GLib/GObject, but still the Vala is pretty pathetic language.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds