I think I agree.  A language requires a clear vision and consistent
aesthetic, exactly the two things that collective decision making is
bad at, remember the old joke about how a camel is a horse designed by
committee?

I think probably the best model is the "benevolent dictator" approach,
which I think is roughly what Scala has now so far as I can tell.

Ian.

On Dec 24, 2007 4:37 AM, James Iry < jiry <at> san.rr.com> wrote:
> 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
>

--
Email: ian.clarke <at> gmail.com
Cell: +1 512 422 3588
AIM: ian.clarke <at> mac.com
Skype: sanity