Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Road to Scala 3

scala-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 196 posts

Re: The Road to Scala 3

#151

Post by Cyph0n »

yahyaheee wrote: post #150
Cyph0n wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Go magically fits right between C++ and Java, which were both Google’s main backend languages AFAIK. I wonder if generics and proper dependency management were on this survey you’re talking about...

Caught me, Go was developed for Google only because it fits between C++ and Java meaning its worthless to everyone else ;) Generics and dep management were on the top of that survey last year. They are the primary focus of the Go team right now. Russ wrote Go Modules for dep managment, the implementation specifically addresses pain points from the community. Generics are a hot topic and looks like we're close to a fi…

Not “for Google only”, but to meet Google’s needs first and foremost. I know that I won’t be convincing you, though :)

Re: The Road to Scala 3

#152

Post by wffurr »

Can we talk about this amazing gradual migration plan with code that can coexist at the bytecode level across a major version change?

This is a real feat of engineering, and likely to make migration actually happen and be fast and easy.

Compared to other 2 to 3 version changes, this is amazing.

Re: The Road to Scala 3

#154

Post by cerved »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #144
ccthr wrote: post #104

To all those saying Scala is dying: Personally I am making top money on Scala gigs, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. The people I meet on these gigs share my opinion. Most people wouldn't take a Java job even if it paid more, same for Go or Node ( both of which I have used in production in the last month, and wouldn't take over Scala, with the exception of serverless) Teams in Media, Government and Finance…

>With all that said, the church of FP and the hascalator community is a problem for Scala. Overly dogmatic & academic functional programming styles don't have a place in production systems. Isn't Scala minus the problems you mentioned just Kotlin?

Does Kotlin have the maybe monad?

Re: The Road to Scala 3

#155

Post by yahyaheee »

Cyph0n wrote: post #151
yahyaheee wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caught me, Go was developed for Google only because it fits between C++ and Java meaning its worthless to everyone else ;) Generics and dep management were on the top of that survey last year. They are the primary focus of the Go team right now. Russ wrote Go Modules for dep managment, the implementation specifically addresses pain points from the community. Generics are a hot topic and looks like we're close to a fi…

Not “for Google only”, but to meet Google’s needs first and foremost. I know that I won’t be convincing you, though :)

I mean I'm sure if Google specifically wanted something they could get it, but honestly I don't get the impression from any of the Go authors they are there to serve Google. They seem genuinely interested in just building the best language they know how. The fact that the features being worked on are the ones that are requested by the community tells me thats authentic.

Don't get me wrong the Go authors have overridden the community a couple of times and there was some serious outrage. Don't think that was a Google thing though, more of an "We know better" from the authors.

Re: The Road to Scala 3

#156

Post by whateveracct »

solicode wrote: post #46

I often see comparisons to Go, Kotlin, Rust, etc, and I agree that it's unlikely for Scala to have a second renaissance and have an steep upward trajectory like those languages, but is that really a death of a language? I'm actually fine with Scala narrowing its scope and focus at being really good at just a couple of things. Such as embracing its FP-side more so than its OO-side. Not to say there is no value in its…

> And since Haskell for the JVM will likely never be a thing (a few have tried, but none have gained traction)

It's more than social reasons. The JVM has technical limitations that ruin idiomatic Haskell. Lack of a mechanism for efficiently and modularly compiling general tail-call elimination.

For instance, if you traverse too long of a list, you'll blow your stack. You can try it and fail yourself with Eta.

FP in Scala has the same issues, but they have some extra utilities to work around it, but it's something you gotta be aware of.

Re: The Road to Scala 3

#157

Post by raquo »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #99
jacobn wrote: post #32

I love scala, and am very much looking forward to scala 3. For all the complaints about the language that always pop up in these threads: yes, the language lets you shoot yourself in the foot (with great power comes people who don’t apply it responsibly), but it’s precisely that power that makes it so useful and exceptional when judiciously applied. I like to say that scala is as if java and ruby had a love child and…

> I like to say that scala is as if java and ruby had a love child and it all worked out. I feel Kotlin is probably a more accurate result of this mindset, but reasonable people disagree. What part of ruby or java has anything morally or technically even approaching the concept, use case, or meaning of implicits?

> What part of ruby or java has anything morally or technically even approaching the concept, use case, or meaning of implicits?

Dependency injection for implicit params, for one? Also, you can almost see implicit conversions as one take on type safe dynamic typing. Almost.

But of course Scala also brings functional programming and its own ideas to the mix.

Re: The Road to Scala 3

#158

Post by monksy »

solicode wrote: post #46

I often see comparisons to Go, Kotlin, Rust, etc, and I agree that it's unlikely for Scala to have a second renaissance and have an steep upward trajectory like those languages, but is that really a death of a language? I'm actually fine with Scala narrowing its scope and focus at being really good at just a couple of things. Such as embracing its FP-side more so than its OO-side. Not to say there is no value in its…

One of the biggest complaints that I've had about Scala is it's community. They've made huge strides to make political statements and gatekeep who contributes. (The core team makes it worse for John De Goes (He's the guy that was either the creator or a big contributer with scalaz and zio) at every turn and it's really annoying)

Re: The Road to Scala 3

#159

Post by AzzieElbab »

Scala is an amazing programming language without rivals when it comes to flexibility. Having said that, while I feel enormous respect for people who pushed functional programming in scala to the limit and almost mainstream, I think blindly porting 99% of Haskell to scala is largely responsible for scalas's observed complexity.

Re: The Road to Scala 3

#160

Post by [deleted] »

devit wrote: post #97

The problem of Scala is that it is outclassed by Rust and Kotlin at its two niches of, respectively, "best designed programming language" and "better Java on the JVM". Scala can't beat Rust because you can't have safe concurrency (and also single-threaded mutation control) without linear types, and you can't have linear types on the JVM; furthermore, a GC and VM-based language is inferior to a native non-GC one provi…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN