groundzeros2015 a day ago

I know this topic has been beat to death but this is another example of why high level language with super optimizing compiler has had less industry success.

If performance is a feature it needs to be written in the code. Otherwise it implicitly regresses when you reorder a symbol and you have no recourse to fix it, other than fiddling to see if it likes another pattern.

▲

alberth a day ago | parent [-]

To be fair, it’s misleading to group Scala (or any JVM language), with other “high-level languages.”

The JVM is extremely mature and performant, and JVM-based languages often run 5x (or more) than non-JVM high-level languages like Python or Ruby.

▲

groundzeros2015 a day ago | parent [-]

That doesn’t follow. Scala is a high level language and compiler above the JVM. The bug here is a high level one:

> Turns out there was indeed a subtle bug making chained evaluations inefficient in Scala 3

I’m comparing with Haskell, Scheme, or even SQl which all promise to compile efficient code from high level descriptions.

▲

blandflakes a day ago | parent [-]

The bug in TFA is hardly a reason that Scala is not a success, though.

	▲	groundzeros2015 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I didn’t say that. I’m highlighting a specific challenge of getting predictable performance over the lifetime of code. Lower-level languages don’t have this same problem to the same extent. They have other problems Scala doesn’t have.