Scala isn't fun anymore

Post by cube2222 » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 1:27 PM UTC

valenterry wrote: post #114

cube2222 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the compiler doesn't cover that automatically doesn't mean Go fails at it, as it has very good primitives for handling them. Error handling and deferring for resource closure work just fine. Sure you could say "but the compiler doesn't guarantee it". But that's not much of a point if it's not a real problem in practice.

> The fact that the compiler doesn't cover that automatically doesn't mean Go fails at it But that's exactly what OP was talking about. Maybe for you that doesn't mean Go fails here, but for (us) Scala developers it definitely feel like Go fails us. We want a language that fails at compiletime in as many cases as possible. > But that's not much of a point if it's not a real problem in practice. Maybe not for you. For…

Post by esarbe » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 1:29 PM UTC

AaronM wrote: post #108

sixminuteabs wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with a lot of the criticism in the article, but also agree with this idea that Scala is in the best position it has ever been. Core Scala is migrating to Scala3 (will take a few years) and the scala team had the courage to take on the rough edges. The Typelevel community (FP side) has a whole ecosystem which is maturing into something really nice. Akka pulled the ripcord on licensing so everyone knows where t…

For me the big win with Go, is its so easy to get from new project -> first working test. I think there installation of the required tooling is very easy and just works, unlike other languages where you can spend a lot of time just getting all of that initial stuff setup. Also upgrading the tool chain is very easy as well.

Post by epgui » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 1:31 PM UTC

billfruit wrote: post #59

jwmcq wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't tell you exactly why (though I have some ideas), but Lisps seem to settle into amazingly stable languages. Even Clojure, with all its initial trendiness, has been remarkably resistant to bloat and churn. Such things as it's added have largely been either standardisations of things that people were doing anyway, or very natural extensions of ideas that were already there, and it still generally passes the "…

Clojure has massive amounts of ecosystem and toolchain pain, even though it is a cool language. Most common dev environment for it is a complex emacs tool chain. If you are seeking the simple joys of programming, Clojure is unlikely to be what you want.

Post by auggierose » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 1:32 PM UTC

valenterry wrote: post #95

cube2222 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because different projects will want different monads It doesn't look like that to me, based on how the ecosystem currently converges on a single one. I understand there may be some projects that do that, but if the majority converge, then it's still needles complexity. However, I might be wrong. I've been an external observer for a while already.

History proofs this wrong. Just look at it: first there were Scala Futures and Twitter Futures. Then there came Scalaz and Monix, later Cats-effect. Now ZIO also joined. And each library even brings different kind of effect types. And all of that works, even in combination! This is as if you mix angular and react. Sure, you should try to not do that as much as possible, but the mere fact that you can do this in Scala…

Post by hocuspocus » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 1:33 PM UTC

icedchai wrote: post #118

I worked at a Scala shop, a little over 10 years ago, and it wasn't fun then, either. 1) IDE support was unstable (Eclipse was basically unusable, IntelliJ was better.) 2) Builds were slow 3) Everyone using their own little dialect, and arguments would ensue over whether we should use that feature or not. Perhaps it's better now.