11–20 of 119 posts
Can someone with some familiarity with Scala community explain why someone who seems to be the largest contributor to Scala felt the need to create a fork? It seems completely justified due to his credentials, but he doesn't give any specific reasons why he created this fork.
Paul Phillips' 2013 rant/talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS1lpKBMkgg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
It turns into a rant about how he'd wish the compiler and the editor and the source control should be all talking with one another. It's funny, because there's actually a language just like that: Smalltalk. The development environment is the same as the runtime environment, it has its own source control (Monticello), its own editor and a very regular language.
1) Paul is not ignorant of the existence of Smalltalk
2) Smalltalk is not a replacement for the fruits of modern language research. In fact, the academic work around Smalltalk is nothing more than unsupported opinion, and it's not even remotely useful as a source of research.
Too soon?
Also, I wonder what the two Scala forkers are thinking about Dotty (the next-gen Typesafe scala compiler) and how they imagine merging their ideas in.
I don't know much about Scala but I believe that most of its facilities are in the libraries rather than the language itself.
Since he seems to know more about compiling Scala than everyone else I guess it must be a good thing. Lets hope others get to fill the inevitable gaps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "The leadership of scala has shown itself unfit stewards of the core technologies and the total price paid by scala programmers (actual and potential) is too high. I failed for half a decade to change that from the inside. Now I'll try from the outside."
That's a strongly worded statement for a front page, but I wish I knew something more about the situation. What progress is being held back? I've not written a line of Scala myself.
That's going to be a nightmare to Google
Almost as bad as 'play' (which has largely fallen back to 'playframework')
Wait.. is it called policy? That's going to be a nightmare to Google Almost as bad as 'play' (which has largely fallen back to 'playframework')
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It turns into a rant about how he'd wish the compiler and the editor and the source control should be all talking with one another. It's funny, because there's actually a language just like that: Smalltalk. The development environment is the same as the runtime environment, it has its own source control (Monticello), its own editor and a very regular language.
I can assure you of two things: 1) Paul is not ignorant of the existence of Smalltalk 2) Smalltalk is not a replacement for the fruits of modern language research. In fact, the academic work around Smalltalk is nothing more than unsupported opinion, and it's not even remotely useful as a source of research.
Wait.. is it called policy? That's going to be a nightmare to Google Almost as bad as 'play' (which has largely fallen back to 'playframework')