Why Learn Scala in 2013?

Post by donjigweed » Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 6:57 PM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #45

CCs wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no limitation: you can use any 3rd party Java library from Scala. We do it in production for years, works perfectly. It's true that Scala DSL is scary. As far I know soon (version 2.10?) you will have to add a compiler flag to enable some scary stuff. They are useful for library developers, but not too great for everyday apps. Also you don't have to use the functional part. I saw plenty of code that looked li…

You're right. But functional adds a whole new layer of "safety". The functional developer will think, "My code is functional, share nothing, messaging passing goodness. I'm fine." As but some new developer, keen on Scala, but not thinking about the older 3rd parties, adds a call from his functional goodness to the non safe, side effecting code. This will introduce a subtle, hard to trace bug. As a result, I'm not a b…

Post by CCs » Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 7:03 PM UTC

binarymax wrote: post #51

CCs wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take on "Should I care about Scala?" question: - If you're average or below average developer: the language does not matter. Focus on algorithms and read other people's code a lot. - If you are using anything other than Java: consider testing Scala ( * ). You might learn great new ways of writing code, especially if you never used Functional Programming before. - If you're above average developer programming in Ja…

So my colleage recommended we look into spark, which looks pretty neat, but said a caveat would be that we would need to learn scala. My first impression of your bare minimum is "holy crap that's a lot of boilerplate for a bare minimum project". While I expected there to be some code necessary to get thing up and running, my mind spun at that 400loc build script. What the heck is that for if you are not actually doin…

Post by CCs » Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 7:31 PM UTC

binarymax wrote: post #55

CCs wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to use the sbt script provided here. It's just for convenience: it will automatically install Java, Scala and dependencies. Run it and you don't have to hunt down anything from the web. If you have SBT already installed (with homebrew, MSI, apt-get etc), you don't need that file at all. Main.scala is a "println", Build.scala sets some compiler flags and project name - this is all. About "Unit": Scala i…

Thanks for the response. Given it's going to the JVM I should have been more prepared for verbosity. I did a bit more reading and with your suggestions it seems my initial reaction is mostly just shock of a change from what I'm used to. I'll do some more research and will probably mellow out a bit :) Any suggestions on ebooks or otherwise to get started? Cheers!

Post by charlieflowers » Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 7:57 PM UTC

Post by bsb » Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 8:44 PM UTC

pkolaczk wrote: post #53

eeperson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel that sbt isn't simple/a disaster? I actually think it is the nicest of the build tools on JVM. I can set up basic projects with no configuration. Also, its triggered build feature[1] combined with its interactive console is a killer feature set that I think all build tools should have. [1] http://www.scala-sbt.org/release/docs/Howto/triggered.html

It is extremely inconsistent. The config file is a list of Scala expressions, however it is not a valid Scala code as a whole. And when you want subprojects, then suddenly the config file is not able to do that, you need to setup another directory with a totally different style of config to do that. On the other hand the interactive console is a killer feature, agreed.