Scala founder: Language due for 'fundamental rethink'

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sat, Sep 06, 2014, 11:47 PM UTC

pps wrote: post #35

virtualwhys wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely, Clojure is very much its own thing, won't draw those that are drawn to Scala (rich type system, (G)ADTs, performance, etc.). That branch of potential adoption is minisicule anyway (even compared to Scala which relative to Java is itself tiny). So, the elephant in the room is indeed Java 8. Will Scala at long last be killed? Perhaps, but highly unlikely, Scala lives and dies on its ecosystem (Akka, Play, Spa…

Clojure is becoming increasingly popular in banks in the UK. (as I heard from trusted person)

Post by jberryman » Sat, Sep 06, 2014, 11:49 PM UTC

tel wrote: post #45

cies wrote: post #10

> Essentially, the fusion of [functional and object-oriented programming] can have a power that neither of the two paradigms individually can have. I tend to disagree. OOP can borrow some FP stuff (as we see with map/each/select/reject in Ruby for instance, or lambda's in Java); or to take it broader: imperative can borrow some from declarative. But "fusing" the two will cause FP's ease-of-reasoning ("just functions…

I think there's a huge opportunity for FP+OO... but that OO will have to be rethought from first principles (which are lacking in OO). More specifically, I think OO-style code interactions are great but that they need to be separated from ambient mutability, subtyping, subclassing, inheritance, etc. Late binding/open corecursion is really cool however. I would like to see a language which starts with ML modules as a…

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sat, Sep 06, 2014, 11:53 PM UTC

vladsanchez wrote: post #66

frowaway001 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Syntax is absolutely not the issue.

Scala's syntax is a glorious fuckup! YMMV

Post by jberryman » Sun, Sep 07, 2014, 1:52 AM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #69

tel wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a huge opportunity for FP+OO... but that OO will have to be rethought from first principles (which are lacking in OO). More specifically, I think OO-style code interactions are great but that they need to be separated from ambient mutability, subtyping, subclassing, inheritance, etc. Late binding/open corecursion is really cool however. I would like to see a language which starts with ML modules as a…

I think there's a huge opportunity for FP+OO... but that OO will have to be rethought from first principles (which are lacking in OO). More specifically, I think OO-style code interactions are great but that they need to be separated from ambient mutability, subtyping, subclassing, inheritance, etc. This has already happened. Ideally, good object-oriented code should always prefer immutability over mutability, should…

Post by cies » Sun, Sep 07, 2014, 1:57 AM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #43

cies wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you don't use type classes in Haskell? Sorry, how does this remark relates to my comment?

I assume it was intended to be 1) an assertion that type classes are OO, and 2) an implication that using them is mixing OO in your FP (which you said you don't like to do), and so 3) an allegation of inconsistency which should be clarified or examined. There are a few places where this chain is weak.