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

Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)

artima.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 65 posts

Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)

#11

Post by kikibobo69 »

spullara wrote: post #2

The biggest thing that is still in the language that they should have removed early on is the native XML syntax support. If I were them I would take it out in 3.0 and break from that bad decision.

I used to agree, until I ran into a bunch of inline StringBuilder Java XML where no schema existed, and simply converting it to Scala at least ensured it was well-formed while we reverse-engineered a schema. I agree it's not something one should use much (well, maybe with Lift), but wow, is it ever useful when it's useful. I agree, doesn't hurt much; helps massively when you need it.

Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)

#13

Post by kikibobo69 »

carsongross wrote: post #4

Gosu has the same dynamic feel in a statically typed JVM language, with much less complexity. (I should mention Fantom too, although I'm much less familiar with it.) Artima appears to have gone all-scala-all-the-time at some point in 2010. Weird.

Bill Venners, owner of Artima, is a co-author of the Staircase book, and author of ScalaTest. He has embraced Scala more than most.

Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)

#14

Post by jorgeortiz85 »

spullara wrote: post #2

The biggest thing that is still in the language that they should have removed early on is the native XML syntax support. If I were them I would take it out in 3.0 and break from that bad decision.

See my answer on Quora to "Will Scala ever remove XML literals?" http://www.quora.com/Will-Scala-ever-remove-XML-literals

Summary: No. At the time that Scala was started, built-in support for XML showcased one area were object-oriented decomposition failed and functional programming proved quite useful. Today the benefits of FP are more well known, and it's generally agreed that if Scala were starting from scratch it would not include XML literals. However, given that XML literals are in the language already, that large code bases have come to rely on them, and that they generally don't get in the way if you don't use them, it's unlikely that they will be removed.

Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)

#15

Post by fizx »

spullara wrote: post #2

The biggest thing that is still in the language that they should have removed early on is the native XML syntax support. If I were them I would take it out in 3.0 and break from that bad decision.

...because what scala needs is more api-breaking decisions...

Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)

#16

Post by stonemetal »

gaius wrote: post #10
vorg wrote: post #7

> I find it one of the most promising things about Scala -- it is not determined to become an instant boat anchor by committing to early decisions that are later revealed to be suboptimal, or outright mistakes. The fact that Scala uses the JVM, with a hacky workaround for type erasure, is suboptimal.

The Scala team have plans afoot to target LLVM and .NET too.

Do they have actual plans though? There has been talk of .NET support since the beginning. Basically I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)

#17

Post by cageface »

carsongross wrote: post #4

Gosu has the same dynamic feel in a statically typed JVM language, with much less complexity. (I should mention Fantom too, although I'm much less familiar with it.) Artima appears to have gone all-scala-all-the-time at some point in 2010. Weird.

Scala looks complex on paper, but my experience has been that in practice it's not that bad. If you're designing a library you need to think hard about types but you can put together an app very quickly in Scala and with a lot fewer initial bugs than in a dynamically typed language.

Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)

#18

Post by curtis »

spullara wrote: post #2

The biggest thing that is still in the language that they should have removed early on is the native XML syntax support. If I were them I would take it out in 3.0 and break from that bad decision.

Putting XML literals in the language just feels wrong. On the other hand, they've turned out to be damn useful when you're writing the back end for a web application.

Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)

#19

Post by illicium »

stonemetal wrote: post #16
gaius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Scala team have plans afoot to target LLVM and .NET too.

Do they have actual plans though? There has been talk of .NET support since the beginning. Basically I wouldn't hold my breath.

Scala already compiles to the CLR, but support for it is nowhere near that for the JVM.

Re: Scala: The Static Language that Feels Dynamic (Bruce Eckel)

#20

Post by jshen »

cageface wrote: post #17
carsongross wrote: post #4

Gosu has the same dynamic feel in a statically typed JVM language, with much less complexity. (I should mention Fantom too, although I'm much less familiar with it.) Artima appears to have gone all-scala-all-the-time at some point in 2010. Weird.

Scala looks complex on paper, but my experience has been that in practice it's not that bad. If you're designing a library you need to think hard about types but you can put together an app very quickly in Scala and with a lot fewer initial bugs than in a dynamically typed language.

I wonder if there is value in making it easy to make library? I feel like the ruby eco system gains a lot for the rate at which people can try out ideas for libraries.
Post reply on HN