We Keep Coding

What should a Scala developer know about Java and/or the JVM?

So up until about 6 months ago, most of my work (big graph processing) consisted of Python and C++. Up to that point, and even now, I had not written any Java whatsoever.. I had seen the language and was familiar with the syntax (having come from a C/C++ background), and liked the idea of the JVM, but never actually written any substantial amount of Java.
When I picked up Scala, I loved it, OOP and functional programming features all in one, and it being on the JVM was great. I've been constantly striving to improve my Scala and have been playing with Akka, and still loving it. However, at times, perhaps it is just me overthinkng it, but I feel I should learn some more about Java and/or the JVM.
I've heard from many that Scala should be considered a separate language from Java, much like C++ to C. Perhaps you may feel the same way, and perhaps learning Java is more or less disjoint from learning Scala, but I'm feeling learning more about the JVM (e.g. JIT compilation, type erasure) would be helpful?
Thoughts?

The JVM executes Bytecode and it is definately helpful to know how this works, just as it is sometimes helpful to know how C/C++ method invocations work or how classes are initialized; because sometimes it matters and cannot be abstracted away.
Java is the prime language for the JVM, and it is helpful to be able to read Java to some extent if you need to use Java classes directly. And this may happen quite often; only a few examples:
you need to use some third party Java library (and there are tons)
working with Properties
you need to do something special in Swing which is not supported by the Scala-Swing wrapper
also sources explaining stuff for 1) will most probably use Java examples
But my advice is not to study it in advance - you'll pick it up when you need it.

Buy this book now: Java Performance. It was only released last October and is a treasure trove of information for anyone who wants to understand the JVM. If you're going to be a Scala developer, you must understand garbage collection and JVM runtime parameters at the very least.

Off top of my head
primitives, autoboxing, and how java arrays are special;
erasure and manifests
how logically tail recursive calls in scala source are compiled
installing -client, -server on your platform and when you want to try 32 bit: e.g. JAVA_HOME and "Java preferences" in OS X. I think openJDK should work anywhere you use same version of Oracle JDK, but IntelliJ warns you to use only official Oracle JDK. I've seen very isolated reports that 3d graphics libs have had problems with openJDK, and also parts of openJDK like the fonts have licensing issues.
setting classpaths in REPL, as compiler option, and in SBT
Hotspot switches, XMX, XMS (heap settings), most common garbage collectors, inlining method calls
java.util.concurrent
possible binary compatibility issues with java and scala code compiled in JDK 6 and 7.

I don't know exactly what you need, but there are several similar questions on SO, look it.
Understanding JVM Better
Understanding the Sun JVM
Also, here good articles for Java Memory Model
Java theory and practice: Fixing the Java Memory Model, Part 1
Java theory and practice: Fixing the Java Memory Model, Part 2
My thought it's better to dig in Java language, write some code, read Java-specific books for better understanding how all things works.

There are a lot of tools surrounding the JVM. If you want to understand how your programs are running (for performance or other reasons) then it's worth being au fait with these. Two useful tools are:
jstack
visualvm
Both are particularly useful for monitoring and interrogating long-running processes.

I think you will know more about JVM when you program Scala. I mean you will have more questions like 'Why this solution is slow and that is fast?' - one way to answer this question is to check the bytecode

What languages would be a good replacement for Java?

I may be posting a premature question, and maybe I'm just freaking out for no reason, but the way Oracle is handling Java is not very promising. I am a nerd who fell in love with Java from the first sight, and use it all the time in my personal/freelance projects but now I am thinking of a replacement.
I am fluent in C#/VB.NET too but I am looking for something more like:
Open Source
Compiled
Cross-Platform
Object Oriented
Large standard library
Extensive documentation
Web development is a major plus
I was thinking about a compromise: Python/Django for web development (or PHP), and Qt for thick client development. Anyone with better thoughts?

Not so long ago, I decided to explore away from the JVM. I set foot on python, and even though i'm nowhere near the expert/ guru level, I dont regret it. Didn't choose C# (considered it) because I consider it to be more of the same. I alredy know (and like a lot) C++, so python seemed like something new, which is what I was looking for.
It fullfils many of your requirements. Particularly, i'm decided not to learn PHP, so the web frameworks in python came in great.
Not to mention, Python has a large community (also see here), always eager to help and teach, which I consider to be very important.
Just my two cents.

Might be worth loking at the other JVM languages - Clojure and Scala are the two I personally think are most promising.
Yes you are on the JVM, but you're pretty independent from Java the langauage and don't have to use any Sun/Oracle implementations if you don't want to.
Having said that - I think that you are worrying a little too much about Java, too many players (including Oracle!) have too much invested to let it go too far off course.

Try Scala. It looks extremely elegant and promising. Being object oriented and sharing a lot with java in a very concise manner.

Everything you said points to C#, except for the Open Source point.
To fix that, there's Mono.

You could try D. My one-sentence description of why it's an awesome language is that its generic programming/compile-time introspection/template metaprogramming facilities are good enough to give you almost flexibility of a duck-typed language, while its execution speed and static type checking rival or exceed C++ and C#.
I think it meets your requirements quite well.
Open source: The frontend to the reference DMD implementation is open source (the back end isn't due to restrictions beyond the author's control). Work is underway to glue the reference frontend to open source backends such as LLVM (LDC) and GCC (GDC). In the case of D1 (the older version of the language) the LLVM port is fairly mature.
Compiled: D is meant to be compiled to native machine code, i.e. raw, inscrutable hexadecimal numbers.
Cross-platform: The reference DMD compiler supports x86 Windows, Linux, Mac OS X and FreeBSD. GDC and LDC will likely support a lot more CPU architectures.
Object oriented: D isn't a "pure" OO language in the Ruby sense of everything being an object, or in the Java sense of not supporting any other paradigm. It does, however, fully support Java-style OO as a subset of the language, along with procedural and functional style programming.
Large standard library: D1 has Tango, which qualifies. D2 has Phobos, which is not "large" yet by modern standards but is larger than C or C++'s standard lib. However, recently there has been a large interest in contributing and Andrei Alexandrescu (its main designer) has accepted several new contributors, including myself.
Extensive documentation: The standard library and language are reasonably well documented at the Digital Mars website. There's also Andrei Alexandrescu's book "The D Programming Language".
Web development: This is an admitted weakness. D doesn't (yet) have a good web framework, though its native unicode support and excellent generic programming support should make writing one relatively easy.

I too would like another Java-like technology to come along. Lately I've been doing Flex/Actionscript. While I really enjoy it, Actionscript technology seriously lacks the elegance that Java has. Adobe can write some good cross platform APIs, but they just don't have the head capital to build elegant languages and compilers. I've also tried Ruby, but the VM for Ruby is really bad. I've gone back to Java after my flirtation with other technologies and I think it's because the language is good enough, but the JVM is by far the best out there.
So do you want to stay with the JVM or do you really want to the leave the JVM altogether? Staying on the JVM there are lots of options: JRuby, Scala, Groovy, Javascript, Clojure are the big players. However, there are tons of great languages that can take advantage of the JVM's features.
Leaving the JVM there are still good options like python, ruby, and erlang. But you give up some of the nice features of the JVM like performance (big one), and the ability to drop down to a nice language like Java if you need speed. Those others mean using C or nothing at all.
I finally stopped worrying about Java's future. Sun did all it could to screw it up and it still turned out pretty darn good. I think Opensource has a lot more influence over Java's success than Oracle or Sun could ever have had.

I can't post comments yet, so I'm posting an answer related to the Python discussion. Though Python isn't compiled to machine code, there is a Python-to-C compiler called Cython, which can compile nearly all valid Python -- closures are finally (!) in the latest development release. It's have a big impact on some parts of the Python commmunity, e.g., I was at Euroscipy recently, and over half the talks mentioned Cython.

I personally don't like PHP, but it does meet all of your requirements. It doesn't officially support compilation but there is the Hip Hop project which compiles PHP to C code. Facebook is currently heading up this project.
That said, I highly discourage you from using it :)

C# is the only thing that will meet your needs and not feel hopelessly archaic, or frustrate with limited library. For open source/non-windows, use mono. It's a good, mature implementation of most of what's important in the CLR.
Some things (WPF, WCF, etc) are "missing" from mono, but these aren't so much part of the platform as they are windows-specific proprietary toolkits. Some of them are being implemented slowly in mono, some aren't. Coming from java you won't miss them because you're looking for a platform and good standard libraries to build upon, not a gui toolkit or whiz-bang communication framework.
As far as a platform to build stuff with that's "like" java and offers similar levels of functionality, C# + CLR is the clearest option.

Using also Cython you get the best of the two worlds , the ability to code in python , the ability to code in C and C++ and of course compile your code and the ability to use both python a c/c++ libraries out of the box. And if you dont like C++ syntax , cython syntax is python syntax and more.
link text

Should I study Scala? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am an experienced C++ programmer with average Python skills. The reasons I studied Python in the first place were:
to get a different perspective on programming (static vs dynamic, interpreted vs compiled, etc.)
to increase the breadth of projects that I can work on (Python allows me to do web development, develop for Symbian phones or knock up quick system administration scripts)
to complement my C++ skills.
I think that Python is great and I believe that I have achieved the above goals. I will continue to use it for small projects, scripts and web development.
I doubt that I can use it for medium to large projects though. While the dynamic typing is convenient, it allows a certain class of bugs that I find disturbing. Unit testing and linting can alleviate this problem, but static typing completely eliminates it.
After looking at some programming languages, I think that Scala looks like a good candidate:
I like the type inference and it runs on the JVM so it should be available wherever the JVM is available. I can also learn more about functional programming when using it.
But... I also have some doubts, and this is where I hope that the Stack Overflow community can help:
Portability: Linux and Windows at least I hope. What about mobile phones, is it possible to get it to run there?
C++ compatibility: can I mix C++ code with Scala? (JNI?)
Programming paradigm: I don't feel comfortable with switching to functional programming (FP) at this time. Can I use object oriented and procedural with some FP at first and then change the proportions as I learn?
Tool chain maturity: what's your experience with IDEs and debuggers? I'm using Eclipse right now and it seems OK.
Learning speed: considering my experience, how fast do you think that I can reach a workable level with Scala?
Deployment: how exactly do you deploy a Scala program? Is it a jar, is it an executable?
Finally, what do you think that are some of Scalas disadvantages?

Portability: Linux and Windows at least I hope. What about mobile phones, did anyone succeed in getting it to run there?
Yes. There is quite some movement about Scala on Android. As for J2ME, I saw something in that respect, but not much. There is some code pertaining to J2ME on the source code repository. I'm not sure how viable it is, but it looks to me that there isn't much demand for that.
I'll also mention that there is/was a pool on Scala-Lang about the desired target platforms, and J2ME was one of them, very low on the totem pole.
C++ compatibility: can I mix C++ code with Scala? (JNI?)
As well as you can mix C++ with Java, for whatever that is worth. If you haven't any experience with that, you can just read the Java resources, as anything in them will be applicable with Scala with no changes (aside Scala syntax).
Programming paradigm: I don't feel comfortable with switching to FP at this time. Can I use OO and procedural with some FP at first and then change the proportions as I learn?
Definitely, yes. Scala goes out of it's way to make sure you don't need to program in a functional style. This is the main criticism of Scala from functional folks, as a matter of fact: some do not consider a language functional unless it forces the programmer to write in functional style.
Anyway, you can go right on doing things your way. My bet, though, is that you'll pick up functional habits without even realizing they are functional.
Perhaps you can look at the Matrices series in my own blog about writing a Matrix class. Even though it looks like standard OO code, it is, in fact, very functional.
Tool chain maturity: what's your experience with IDEs and debuggers? I'm using Eclipse right now and it seems ok.
IDEA (IntelliJ), NetBeans and Eclipse all have good support for Scala. It seems IDEA's is the best, and NetBeans/Eclipse keep frog-jumping each other, though NetBeans has certainly been more stable than Eclipse of late. On the other hand, the support on Eclipse is taking a very promising route that should produce results in the next 6 months or so -- it's just that it's a bumping route. :-)
Some interesting signs of Scala tooling for these enviroments is the fact that the Eclipse plugin in development uses AOP to merge more seamlessly with the whole IDE, that the NetBeans plugin is being completely rewritten in Scala, and that there's a Scala Power Pack on IDEA that supports, among other things, translating Java code into Scala code.
The EMACS folks have extensive tools for Scala as well, and lots of smaller editors have support for it too. I'm very comfortable with jEdit's support for small programs and scripts, for instance.
There is also good Maven support -- in fact, the standard way to install Lift is to install maven, and then build a Lift archetype. That will pull in an appropriate Scala version. There's an scala:cc target that will do triggered recompilation as well.
Speaking of recompilation, neither Maven, and particularly nor Ant do a good job at identifying what needs to be recompiled. From that problem sprung SBT (Simple Build Tool), written in Scala, which solves that problem through the use of Scala compiler plugin. SBT uses the same project layout as Maven, as well as Maven/Ivy repositories, but project configurations are done in Scala code instead of XML -- with support for Maven/Ivy configuration files as well.
Learning speed: considering my experience, how fast do you think that I can reach a workable level with Scala?
Very fast. As a purely OO language, Scala already introduces some nice features, comparable to some stuff that's present in C++ but not Java, though they work in different fashion. In that respect, once you realize what such features are for and relate them to C++ stuff, you'll be much ahead of Java programmers, as you'll already know what to do with them.
Deployment: how exactly do you deploy a Scala program? Is it a jar, is it an executable?
The same thing as Java. You can deploy JARs, WARs, or any other of Java targets, because the scala compiler generate class files. In fact, you use Java's jar to generate a Scala's JAR file from the class files, and the Maven targets for Lift support building WAR files.
There is an alternative for script files, though. You can call "scala" to run Scala source code directly, similar to a Perl of Shell script. It can also be done on Windows. However, even with the use of a compilation daemon to speed up execution, start up times are slow enough that effective use of Scala in a heavy scripting environment needs something like Nailgun.
As for Scala's disadvantages, take a look at my answer (and other's) in this Stack Overflow question.

Scala is an evolving language well worth to invest in, especially if you are coming from Java world. Scala is widely covered at Artima. See this article from Bill Venners and also read about Twitter and Scala.
Regarding your questions:
Java can run wherever there is a JVM. No luck with the mobile phones however. You need a full JRE, not the subset that is available there.
This is possible with JNI. If something is possible with Java, then it is possible with Scala. Scala can call Java classes.
Functional programming is a strong point of Scala - you do need to learn it. However you could also start using it without taking full advantage of it and work your way with it.
There is a plug-in of Eclipse. It is not best, but it will do the job. More details here.
If you are experienced, I would say really fast. I recommend that you find a book to start with.
See this faq entry for deployment.

Programming paradigm: I don't feel comfortable with switching to FP at this time. Can I use OO and procedural with some FP at first and then change the proportions as I learn?
Scala has full support for imperative programming, writing programs with no FP elements in it is a breeze (however, FP is useful and worth learning anyway).
Learning speed: considering my experience, how fast do you think that I can reach a workable level with Scala?
Quickly. There is a number of interesting features in Scala that may be not familiar to people coming from a C++, Java environment, like for example some of the features of the typing system. Some argue that the fact that there is a lot to learn in Scala before you know all of it is a problem with the language; I disagree. The presence of those feature is an advantage of the language. The more features the merrier. After all, you don't have to use them all at once, just like you don't have to buy everything that is being sold in the store.

Learning speed: considering my experience, how fast do you think that I can reach a workable level with Scala?
I also come from a C++ background, one thing I noticed is that since you will write a lot less code as compared to C++ for a comparable task, your learning will be expedited as you will get more done in the same time period. This was the same phenomenon that I experienced with Ruby.

Actually - if I were you - I'd study programming paradigms instead of languages. Of course you have to study an example language to study the paradigm. Knowing the drawbacks & benefits of different paradigms enables you to view your problems from a different side and makes you a better programmer (even in the languages you already know).
Picking up a language of a paradigm already known is a relativly easy task if needed. Since Scala is FP (at least you mentioned it) and C++/Python is OOP, it's a good language for you, I'd say.

You should register for this course by the Creator of Scala himself.
https://www.coursera.org/course/progfun

James Strachan (productive Java open source developer, for those not in the loop) has an interesting discussion of Scala here, and why he feels it's a progression from Java (the langauge, not the platform).
Scala looks like it's gaining a lot of traction. I don't think it's a flash in the pan, and is currently on my list of languages to learn (partly for the functional aspect)

Here's an anecdotal evidence regarding learnability of Scala.
In our company, we got several interns from U.Waterloo. They were told to write in Scala; never saw it before.
They picked up Scala and Lift remarkably fast; now they are producing Scala code; it may be not perfect, but nobody's perfect.
So, the fact that a manager does not know Scala may be not the best argument when you decide on adoption.

Best approach for learning Java after C++?

I've been using C++ for about 6 or 7 years now, and I consider myself fluent in it. I've never bothered with Java until now, but I find myself out of the job (company went under) and I need to expand my skill set. Someone recommended Java, so I am wondering if there is any advice for where somebody like me might start. I am also interested to know what the key aspects of Java are that are most likely to come up in an interview.

There are some popular areas that I think of when we talk about Java
Concepts of OOP: I'm sure this will not be much different from C++:
Class, Abstract Class, Interface,
Polymorphism, Overriding,
Overloading, Inheritance, Static
member, ... Interface will likely be
area that you might want to focus.
Since this is not directly available
in C++, I don't know.
Core Java: Such as the basic syntax and the common classes such
as Math, String, System.out,
Scanner, Basic file I/O, Stream.
Know the concept of Garbage
Collection, Reference Type (since
pointers are not available here.)
Know the Java platform/technologies,
J2SE, J2EE. Basic GUI with Swing and
its layout managers. Web
Applications with Servlet/JSP.
Popular tools, frameworks, and libraries: This may not as
important as above bullets. But
maybe you should know what Eclipse,
Netbeans, Spring, Struts, Hibernate,
EJB, Ant, JUnit, JavaDoc, are for.
You can always search for "C++ to Java" in Google. I'm sure there will plenty of good start points. Don't forget not to put * in front of var name next time you code Java :)

I recommend you read the book Effective Java cover to cover. Not only will you learn lots of good programming practices, but you will also learn more about Java than you otherwise would. Highly recommended. :-)
As a simple example, in Java, rather than rolling bitfields by hand (which is rather painful to do in Java, and for good reason), you use an EnumSet instead. This is documented in Item 32.
BTW, if you don't mind reading a PDF (no DRM) version, it's cheaper than hardcopy too: http://www.informit.com/title/0132345285

There are a number of great "in depth" Java books that will teach you not only Java, but also best programming practices.
If you're just interested in syntax and an introduction to the Class Hierarchy, Java in 24 hours is pretty good. From there, you will know enough to go and explore more on your own.
I highly recommend thinking of a small project to help you learn. In fact, think of a teeny tiny project -- it will turn out much bigger than you think! ;) Maybe a simple shoot-em-up or a Daleks- or Asteroids-alike, or some such.
The main thing being: for an expert-level programmer, don't try to learn Java from a book. You can get introduced to Java via a book, but then you have to go learn on your own (or from another.) It's like learning to drive a car -- you can get the basics from a book, but you need to explore & try stuff, and someone who knows how can be very helpful.
Some things that will help:
Download and bookmark the HTML Java docs. You will reference them often.
Have a small project, a simple game or utility app that you estimate will take a couple of days to write. Spend a couple of weeks writing it ;)
Note that "Java" is 3 things:
Java the programming language. Like C++ or Lisp or Perl.
Java the Class Hierarchy. Like STL or Cocoa.
Java the run-time virtual machine, the JVM.
People use the word "Java" to mean all 3 things, and slip between them without much notice, so pay attention to that, when you start talking Java to people.
Good luck!
(And let us know when your game is available :)

The biggest issue with the C++ to Java conversion is that they're so similar -- you'll find yourself doing C++-isms for a while. But it's no big deal: as suggested, read Josh Bloch's book, and run through the tutorials on java.sun.com and you'll do fine.

In my opinion, Java sets itself apart from C++ in three ways:
Automated memory management
Simplified syntax (and no preprocessor)
The Java standard libraries
As a former C++ guy, the first two shouldn't be a problem. (In fact, I would wager they will strike you as rather refreshing.) To get used to the libraries, I recommend Bruce Eckel's Thinking in Java - the 3rd edition is free to download. Though the beginning chapters will probably be a little too basic, the sections about GUI programming, concurrency, and the various container classes will be very helpful.
Beyond that, the best way to learn any language is to read good code.

I started by reading the Java Language Specification, version 2 at the time (2001).
In my view it is quite readable as specifications go.
Effective Java is good advice.
Java Puzzlers is good to learn corner cases and possible pitfalls.

The Peter Norton's Guide to Java Programming, "Making the Transition from C/C++ to Java".

BGGA closures as a bolt-on solution to java?

Yesterday #headius / Charles Nutter came up with a very interesting idea on twitter:
#danny_l Gafter made the same mistake; I don't mean a forked Java any more than Groovy is a fork. I want a "mostly Java" with closures.
or the reply by #danny_l / Danny Lagrouw:
#headius or could the BGGA prototype be "bolted on" any future version of Java? That might be useful
That really is what I would like to see as well. Can't we have some sort of bytecode preprocessor to make the BGGA prototype work on any modern Java version? I mean scala, Groovy and JRuby have closures and produce valid bytecode!
I would even like to help and put effort in it. Although I don't really know where to start.
(the above is an excerpt of the blogpost I wrote about this topic)
What do others think of this idea?

The word 'preprocessor' takes me back to C++ and it scares me.
There is a weird dichotomy: I celebrate the diverse garden of languages on the JVM, but I think that "Mama Bear" (aka Java) should not become fragmented like this. We need a solid foundation.
That said, I am in favour of BGGA closures. I also think a language should provide its full capabilities. If a team has people who can't handle closures (or generics, or threading (!!)), then that team should police itself through code reviews and static analysis.
Maybe one idea would be to have a compile-time switch to 'disallow' advanced features like this but even that seems a bit harsh.
I think the 'bolt-on' idea is really trying to address the fractured leadership in the Java space. That problem strikes as being more political and diplomatic than technical.

The problem with making these things a bolt on is that you create a fragmented language.
The java language is the smallest part of what makes java, java. The libraries and the culture make up the larger part. Making closures and generics a bolt on means that either they cannot be used in the core libraries or that the core libraries would require the bolt on to be present in the SDK being used. This would at best create fragmentation within the libraries (as some developers work to the core and some require the bolt-on) and at worst would mean that we will start having 'distributions' of java in the manor of java each containing a different set of jars and 'bolt-ons'.
I would say this is the start of a slippery slop I would rather stay off of.