Our great sponsors
-
referencesource
Source from the Microsoft .NET Reference Source that represent a subset of the .NET Framework
-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
-
Just like every language is able to be slow/non-performant -- but OO in this case would be Python in a web context; it doesn't invalidate that a good amount of OO codebases in the wild devolve into incomprehensible black boxes, where no one has any idea what anything does or how to make meaningful changes that fulfill the intent of (compare that to iterative programming, where you can atleast read it)
A list: I give you a vector. Plain and simple. Not this insanity: https://referencesource.microsoft.com/#mscorlib/system/colle... You do not need OO to create a vector (or even an array -- god forbid!)
As for trees: roll your own. They're simple enough, yet tightly-coupled with context that no generic implementation exists that is flexible enough. You do not need OO to create a tree. C has been working with trees long before the current Frankensteination of OO was even a twinkle in Gosling's eye.[0]
Data structures do not need inheritance -- they might need delegation (message passing that requires you to actually think about your system).
Data structures do not need encapsulation -- they most likely need namespaces. Realistically, most classes will be used as namespaces.
Data structures do not need polymorphism -- just implement the methods you need, and name them appropriately (no 5+ word phrases, please. Please!)
What modern OO does is lower the barrier to productivity in the present, and then pays for it in the future. It's no different than writing your "planet scale" backend system in JS.
[0] If you want to know why we have Java: some guys that didn't have the time to think about low-level (memory management specifically) things for their embedded applications, got sick of trying to learn C++, decided to make their own language. That's it. There was no grand plan or thoughtful design -- it's just a mismash of personal preference.
There's also MojoLang[0] that brands itself as a alternative to Python, and Google will look to release Carbon soon as well. It'll be interesting to see how these two grow.
There's also Odin[1] that looks promising.
I don't think C# is going anywhere, F# on the other hand :shrug: is at the mercy of MS - they always seem to be on the fence about it.
[0] - https://www.modular.com/mojo
[1] - http://odin-lang.org/
If you are truly interested in understanding my point of view -- a great way to do it would be to learn how to use this Clojure DSL: https://github.com/redplanetlabs/specter
Martin Odersky is just a very nice guy and I get the impression that he isn't keen on saying "no", which is how you end up with a language that allows you to use xml tags inline (no longer supported in Scala 3),
https://github.com/scala/scala-xml/wiki/Getting-started
The "opinionated" Scala are the Typelevel and Zio stacks, which are very cool.
The problem with the "better Java" approach is that although it has helped Scala's growth a lot, it has also made it susceptible to Kotlin. The Scala code that doesn't use the advanced type magic can be straightforwardly rewritten in Kotlin instead. Kotlin also stops your bored developers from building neat type abstractions that no one else understands.
People who use Scala only has a "better Java" can now use Kotlin has a "better "better Java"".