51–60 of 105 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing you got downvoted because it's a silly point to make. Companies have stupid names all the time. No investor is going to care about that.
There are stupid names and there are misleading names.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not Perl all over again. Have you even _read_ those one-liners? Those are neither line-noise, nor fickle one-line imperative solutions. On the contrary, they are elegant and easy to read --you just have to understand the basics of functional programming, map, reduce, filter and the like (which, in themselves are trivial concepts). Stuff like those in the article: (pmap process-line lines) (dotimes [n 4] (println…
To be fair, comparing something like this: (partition-by #(> % 60) [49 58 76 82 88 90]) to so-called line noise code seems reasonable enough. As with Perl, if you immediately know what all the punctuation means and what the underlying structure of the language is, it’s concise, but if you don’t, it’s quite a mess of random-looking symbols. For comparison, here’s a Haskell version, which in this case has a more intuit…
The Haskell version doesn't actually do the same thing. The Haskell returns [76, 82, 88, 90]; the Clojure returns ((49 58) (76 82 88 90))---it groups the input according to the result of the function, it doesn't just filter it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They look fine to me and it also look good written in Perl :) use List::Util qw(sum max min); # 1 map { $_ * 2 } 1..10; # 2 sum 1..1000; # 3 my @wordlist = ("scala", "akka", "play framework", "sbt", "typesafe"); my $tweet = "This is an example tweet talking about scala and sbt."; grep { $tweet =~ m/\b$_\b/ } @wordlist; # 4 my $file_text = do { local $/ = undef; open my $fh, ' }; chomp( my @file_lines = do { open my $…
my $file_text = do { local $/ = undef; open my $fh, ' }; I have absolutely no idea what this line does. local? undef? ' ? This is how you read a file in Perl?
If you don't know Perl, why should you expect to? I didn't know that #(...) represented a lambda in Scala until a moment ago.
That is good but I have used Scala before and would not recommend it for an enterprise project. It was rather convoluted and had lots of concepts that just would not make sense to the java programmers in our company. There would be teams that could have used it and thrived but overall the complexity of the language seemed to outweigh any reasons I could give to use it. I wish them the best but I think they will have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, comparing something like this: (partition-by #(> % 60) [49 58 76 82 88 90]) to so-called line noise code seems reasonable enough. As with Perl, if you immediately know what all the punctuation means and what the underlying structure of the language is, it’s concise, but if you don’t, it’s quite a mess of random-looking symbols. For comparison, here’s a Haskell version, which in this case has a more intuit…
I know this is a discussion on syntax but I can't help pointing out that the semantics of paritition-by and filter are very different.
That is good but I have used Scala before and would not recommend it for an enterprise project. It was rather convoluted and had lots of concepts that just would not make sense to the java programmers in our company. There would be teams that could have used it and thrived but overall the complexity of the language seemed to outweigh any reasons I could give to use it. I wish them the best but I think they will have…
Complexity of Scala has been debated many times. Just because a language adds some new concepts and is different than other mainstream languages, is not enough to call it "complex". Before you answer question about whether Scala is complex, try to answer the following questions first: Is JEE complex? Is Spring Framework complex? Is Maven complex? Are webservices complex? Is C# complex? They are, they introduce new co…
Now I might be mistaken, but Scala is one of rare languages that actually has compiler commands that disable parts of it syntax (or there was a plan to do so). To me that yells - Too complex. I'm quite sure it is powerful. But it doesn't look like something I'd enjoy using.
My main gripes about Scala is that the trait system is way less elegant than the Smalltalk variant [1], there seems to be a hundred different ways to do a thing (as opposed to a more unified way of doing things) and the overall "automagical" implicit. Not to mention the overall verbosity and ways the different features mesh together.
[1]http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~aldrich/courses/819/Scha03aTraits.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my $file_text = do { local $/ = undef; open my $fh, ' }; I have absolutely no idea what this line does. local? undef? ' ? This is how you read a file in Perl?
I have absolutely no idea what this line does. If you don't know Perl, why should you expect to? I didn't know that #(...) represented a lambda in Scala until a moment ago.
Dear Typesafe We are glad you got funded and wish you all the best Signed: Oracle's legal department
Scala's on top of Java and the JVM; not a reimplementation of it. Oracle appears to be okay with this, and sometimes encourages it. (Not to imply I'm condoning Oracle's attempted legal smashing of Dalvik)
That is good but I have used Scala before and would not recommend it for an enterprise project. It was rather convoluted and had lots of concepts that just would not make sense to the java programmers in our company. There would be teams that could have used it and thrived but overall the complexity of the language seemed to outweigh any reasons I could give to use it. I wish them the best but I think they will have…