Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scala 3.0

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 292 posts

Re: Scala 3.0

#171

Post by clarkcox3 »

jim-jim-jim wrote: post #45
killingtime74 wrote: post #9

Scala is not perfect but it’s very good. It’s competitive pressure arguably improved Java (streams, pattern matching, data classes).

> Scala is not perfect but it’s very good. I like to refer to it as Haskell with an extra chromosome: slow, hard to comprehend, and incredibly strong. I'm lucky enough to write it in my day job and I feel like I'm living life on easy mode because of it. It'd take a lot of money to lure me back to garbage like Python/JS at this point.

I like to refer to Jim-jim-jim as an asshole who likes to make fun of people with Down's syndrome

Re: Scala 3.0

#172

Post by elygre »

chrisseaton wrote: post #157
RhodesianHunter wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Java release notes look like a list of Kotlin features these days. Sealed classes, data classes, multiline strings, coroutines -> project loom, switch statement improvements to resemble Kotlin when statement, improvements to Streams to match Sequences.

These aren’t ‘Kotlin features’ they’re just normal language features. I really struggle to see Kotlin as being part of the debate here. These features are being driven by enterprise Java user pain points. And those people aren’t looking at Kotlin.

I agree that this would probably happen in the Java world, regardless of kotlin. However, I disagree with the statement that enterprise Java users are not looking at kotlin. From my view (in a large, global consulting business), we see large enterprise Java users adopting kotlin.

Re: Scala 3.0

#173

Post by mwcampbell »

kjaer wrote: post #95
brabel wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Scala 3 not advance the capabilities of Scala Native, making GaalVM unnecessary (if still an option) for running Scala without the JVM?

Scala Native and GraalVM Native Image are projects with different goals, so I wouldn't say that one makes the other unnecessary. Both projects aim to compile to native code, and have use-cases for projects where the JVM startup time is too high. However, one of the main goals of Native Image is to offer as much partial evaluation (PE) at compile-time as possible. Scala Native does also seem to do some PE, but my unde…

> However, one of the main goals of Native Image is to offer as much partial evaluation (PE) at compile-time as possible.

This is tangential, but I wonder if Native Image's focus on compile-time PE, and the overall design of GraalVM, would make it feasible to AOT-compile a sufficiently static subset of JavaScript to efficient native code. If so, that could influence my choice of language for new projects.

Re: Scala 3.0

#174

Post by dtech »

haolez wrote: post #111

I'm in need of a functional language for a small part of my system and I'm considering Scala and Purescript[0] (mostly because of their ecosystems). Maybe Scala 3 is a good time to be boarding Scala's ship. I'd appreciate if anyone has any advices of one vs the other. [0] https://www.purescript.org/

If it's a small part of your system take that one that integrates best: JS => Purescript, JVM => Scala, .NET => F# etc.

I wouldn't call Scala3 quite "start-a-project-with-it" ready because the ecosystem will need a couple of months at least to update, but Scala 2.13 should suit your needs more than fine.

Re: Scala 3.0

#175

Post by valenterry »

agbell wrote: post #141
darksaints wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should have never been a language feature before IDEs were capable of working with them and exposing them. Luckily they do now...but Scala 3 makes it so that understanding them with a simple text editor is much easier. The fact that they have to be imported in a way that acknowledges their usage is a simple but important way to ease that burden, and the distinction between `given` and `using` is extremely helpfu…

Rumor has it Kotlin was inspired by frustrations getting Scala edge cases to work in IntelliJ.

I don't believe that this is true. Because, one can just write simple Scala and has pretty much everything that Kotlin has (minus its nullability magic) and never deal with these edgecases. Even compiletimes are decent then.

But with Kotlin, it is actually enforced that the more advanced features of Scala are not available, so it makes sure that compiletimes etc. stay short. It also simply reduces the burden of the IntelliJ devs, because it's not just "Language -> IDE" but IDE capabilities impact how the language is designed too. And having a good IDE is very important for productivity.

Re: Scala 3.0

#176

Post by ptrwis »

asdasdasdch wrote: post #90
atbpaca wrote: post #88

This is super cool! Looking forward to metaprogramming in Scala 3!

Choose your flavor @ https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/guides/macros/

With "Expr" it should be possible to built an ORM similar to Entity Framework, it allows to write elegant queries thanks to Expression Trees in C#.

Re: Scala 3.0

#177

Post by valenterry »

OOPMan wrote: post #170
Buttons840 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's an example of something they made more approachable? One of my first impressions of Scala, which I have barely seen, and do not know, is that there is a lot of syntax. Has anything been done to help with that? I don't think syntax matters much, but it's one of the only impressions I have of the language and wanted to ask about it.

That's an interesting take, as someone that's used Scala for a while I feel like there actually isn't that much syntax. I guess my perception is warped :-)

I agree. But Scala still does certain things different, so to a Java or python dev it _looks_ as if there is a lot of syntax. Just like Haskell looks strange when you look at it for the first time.

Re: Scala 3.0

#178

Post by dtech »

augustk wrote: post #108

I think the best evolution of a programming language is when some features are removed and replaced by a unifying concept which makes the language both smaller and and more expressive. Has that happened in Scala 3?

Scala 3 isn't such a language, most of the stuff people use is still there.

The biggest change touching your comment is replacing one feature (implicits) with a couple more tailored features (extension methods, conversions and context parameters). In practice they were very powerful and versatile, but also complicated, finicky and bug-prone. Feels a bit like pointers in that regard.

Re: Scala 3.0

#179

Post by blandflakes »

nwsm wrote: post #149
blandflakes wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you considering them together, or against one another? I'd have considered Purescript, which compiles to javascript, to compete with Scala.js, but I hadn't realized (but now do) that purescript has a serverside component as well.

JavaScript has Node and Deno? Not sure the point you're making about serverside.

Sure, but purescript has to exist as a node package, which it does! I just didn't know that. Last time I'd looked the landing page was way more browser-focused.

Re: Scala 3.0

#180

Post by OOPMan »

killingtime74 wrote: post #9

Scala is not perfect but it’s very good. It’s competitive pressure arguably improved Java (streams, pattern matching, data classes).

Let's not talk about the thing Java calls pattern matching
Post reply on HN