ceylon

Initialization in Ceylon is nothing like initialization in Java: - For the simple (common) case where there is exactly one initialization path, Ceylon is far less verbose.

Looks like Kotlin will join Ceylon in terms of promising things and then failing to ship them.

And then implemented 5 years ago as one of like the very earliest features in the Ceylon type checker?

Well it's really lovely and encouraging to see Ceylon exercising such a strong influence on Scala.

In fact some base types (Int, Long) in Ceylon don't match the corresponding Java type.

So far Ceylon seems not have caught any traction, which is unfortunate as it also is a language well-made in many ways.

Nobody needs or wants the mess of Java-style initialization Ceylon tries to replicate.

Quite similar in terms of feature-sets, but I would say Kotlin has better tooling and Ceylon has better documentation, and tutorials.

OK, so in Ceylon I can have a constructor which does not declare any parameters.

Kotlin has extension methods which Ceylon has not.

The order of Ceylon initialization is nice.

That's why Ceylon doesn't have static methods.

Everything Ceylon has built into "constructors" are just standard methods with no magic required in Scala.

How are Ceylon's constructors more "complex" than Scala's constructors?

Ceylon wasted the "good" syntax on the wrong construct.

> Everything Ceylon has built into "constructors" are just standard methods with no magic required in Scala.

In Ceylon, static is all over the place: Scala has members of objects and constructors of classes.

Factory methods provide everything else, and are declared in objects, instead of being static like in Ceylon.

It's a good thing though, because Ceylon's approach isn't very good in terms of language complexity.