Re: Scala Object Notation ( SCON? )

The number one reason that Scala should not become part of Apache is that "concensus" decisions are exactly
the 100% wrong way to design a language except in the rare case where the committee consists of language
design experts with a common vision.  Normally, designing a language by committee gets you...well, a
bunch of languages that I won't mention because doing so would hurt some fan's feelings.  So let's just say
COBOL and move on.

Now, perhaps some of the tools, maybe even the compiler, would benefit from living under the Apache
umbrella, but that's different from the language itself being there.

---- David Pollak <feeder.of.the.bears <at> gmail.com> wrote: 
> On Dec 23, 2007 3:44 AM, David Bernard <david.bernard.31 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I thinks that with some change in Property you could support a builder
> > approach that support
> > val w = new Widget()
> >        .name("MyWidget")
> >        .height(10)
> >        .children(label, panel, button)
> 
> 
> Which is what you get with lift components.
> 
> But I believe the larger issue is one of mutability and internal type
> representation.
> 
> JavaScript has JSON because it is pretty much built on hash tables and the
> built in types (numbers, Strings, dates, booleans, arrays and hashs/objects)
> are so limited in number that it makes sense to have special syntax for each
> of them.
> 
> Scala, too, has some special notation for building object hierarchies: case
> classes.  One can build complex object hierarchies using case classes.  In
> my opinion, they are as easy to read as JSON objects.  They are a little
> more verbose to type, but that's because they're typed (ah hah... a pun.)
> 
> One can also do:
> Map('foo -> Array(1,2,3), 'bar -> Array("dog", "cat"), 'baz ->
> Date("12-23-07"))
> 
> It's a little more verbose than JSON, but the objects are serializable as
> JSON (okay, I made up the Date thing, but it's not hard to implement.)
> 
> If you want the kind of unstructured hash tables you get with JavaScript,
> use Maps/Arrays (or Lists).  If you want more structured stuff, where are
> case classes lacking?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > my 2 cents.
> >
> > /davidB
> >
> > Andrés Testi wrote:
> > > Yes, but I don't like the fact of create a subclass of Person. I just
> > > want to instantiate a Person. Suppose you have this Widget class:
> > >
> > > class Widget{
> > >   val name  = new Property("")
> > >   val width = new Property(0)
> > >   val height = new Property(0)
> > >   val children  = new Property(Array[Widget]())
> > > }
> > >
> > > To populate the Widget properties without Object notation, you need to
> > > write the next code
> > >
> > > val w = new Widget
> > > p.name() = "MyWidget"
> > > p.height() = 10
> > > p.children() = Array(
> > >   label, panel,button
> > > )
> > >
> > > the previous code is not Property-Editor friendly, because the
> > > "programmatic" nature. Then, a declarative syntax is the key. But
> > > creating annonimous class is not declarative but programmatic, because
> > > I would to assign a property 2 times:
> > >
> > > new Widget{
> > >   name="MyWidget"
> > >   name="YourWidget"
> > > }
> > >
> > > In the other hand, I don't like to subclass Widget, because I just
> > > want to instantiate Widget.
> > >
> > > 2007/12/22, martin odersky <martin.odersky <at> epfl.ch>:
> > >>> Hello:
> > >>> Is it possible to instantiate scala objects in a declarative way like
> > >>> JSON. I think this would be a solution:
> > >>>
> > >>> val p = new Person{
> > >>>    name = "Peter"
> > >>>    age = 20
> > >>>    friends = Array(
> > >>>       new Person{
> > >>>           name = "Gary"
> > >>>       }
> > >>>    )
> > >>>
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >> Sure. That you wrote is legal Scala, assuming you declared Person like
> > this:
> > >>
> > >>   class Person {
> > >>      var name: String = ""
> > >>      var age: Int = 99
> > >>      var friends: Array[Person] = Array()
> > >>   }
> > >>
> > >> But maybe that's not what you wanted?
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >>
> > >>  -- Martin
> > >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> lift, the secure, simple, powerful web framework http://liftweb.net
> Collaborative Task Management http://much4.us