I chose those languages based on a poll by my publisher, mostly. That gave me a list of a bunch of languages. I did have a couple of rules.
1) I wanted exactly one object oriented language. (Not counting prototype languages.) Ruby was the top one, so I struck Python. I replaced it with the next language on the list, Prolog.
2) I did not want to cover Java, JavaScript, C or C++ for a variety of reasons. Mostly, they are all too popular, so it seemed like a little bit of a cop out. Plus, JavaScript has a bunch of problems for a book like this one. So I struck JavaScript, which made the top 5. I replaced it with another prototype language, Io. I am very pleased with the choice, and so are most of the readers. It is one of the purest prototype languages you'll find. The other options were Lua and Self.
The rest of the story is covered in the post referenced above. Thanks for the question, and good luck!
First rule of Kayak: When in doubt, paddle like Hell
May I ask you why you picked Scala?
Actors are covered in Erlang, a JVM language is included in the shape of Clojure.
Why you didn't nominate OCaml in place of Scala (assuming it was included in the poll)?
Bruce Tate
Author
Ranch Hand
Joined: Jun 04, 2002
Posts: 71
posted
1
John Todd wrote:May I ask you why you picked Scala?
Actors are covered in Erlang, a JVM language is included in the shape of Clojure.
Why you didn't nominate OCaml in place of Scala (assuming it was included in the poll)?
I wish I had something more profound to say, but my readers just requested it more than the other object oriented/functional hybrid alternatives. That, and my good friends Ted Neward and Venkat Subramanyam (there's no way I spelled that right) had all dabbled in Scala, and made it sound interesting.
But yes, actors are covered in Io, Scala, and Erlang. There are also actor-like models in Clojure.
Was Fantom programming language considered? I had started off learning that language- but after reading this thread I kind of backed off from Fantom and continued with Scala.
Bruce Tate wrote: . . . Java, JavaScript, C or C++ for a variety of reasons. Mostly, they are all too popular, . . .
Agree: they are already well covered elsewhere. For that sort of book, it is better to go for less well-known languages.
Bruce Tate
Author
Ranch Hand
Joined: Jun 04, 2002
Posts: 71
posted
0
Mohamed Sanaulla wrote:Was Fantom programming language considered? I had started off learning that language- but after reading this thread I kind of backed off from Fantom and continued with Scala.
Any views on that?
I didn't really consider Fantom (was fan). I didn't know much about it.
Andy Bach
Greenhorn
Joined: Feb 02, 2005
Posts: 4
posted
0
Campbell Ritchie wrote:
Bruce Tate wrote: . . . Java, JavaScript, C or C++ for a variety of reasons. Mostly, they are all too popular, . . .
Agree: they are already well covered elsewhere. For that sort of book, it is better to go for less well-known languages.
Yes! I remember that page. Steve was one of the guys who reviewed Beyond Java. We both liked Ruby, and both wanted a chance to be able to write it professionally. He's one of those guys who is just smarter than the rest of us. I have a tremendous amount of respect for what he was able to accomplish at Google.
0
