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

Scala 3.0.0-M1

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 148 posts

Re: Scala 3.0.0-M1

#61

Post by AzzieElbab »

misja111 wrote: post #42
valenterry wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that a bad thing? It's the same in other languages and it is nice to have some flexibility. E.g. lisp: use whichever type of parentheses you want Or Kotlin: use short syntax lambdas fruits.filter(it == apple) or long syntax fruits.filter(fruit -> fruit == apple) or with annotated types: fruits.filter{fruit: Fruit -> fruit == apple} Sometimes brevity is good for the reader, sometimes more details are good for t…

The flexibility is perfectly fine when you're programming something on your own. But when you're in a team, or worse, in a large company, it starts to be a problem that everyone can use their own style. It's much easier to read someone else's code when you have a common code style. And in Scala there are not only many different ways to use the standard libraries or to structure your code, there is a pure FP vs OOP-st…

That is when company wide style guide helps.

Re: Scala 3.0.0-M1

#62

Post by cies »

pjmlp wrote: post #37
cies wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> used to sell InteliJ licenses Though IntelliJ has amazing features for Java/Kotlin: it comes with a free version that packs most of 'm. I think saying it's all to sell licenses is a disingenious, lots of longstanding Java pain points get addressed by Kotlin in a really nice way. It has a really strong webdev ecosys building up, and comes with a rather interesting feature set as language itself. I'd say its good "ty…

Not at all, JetBrains are the first ones to admit it, also why they decided to stop contributing to Eclipse and merging the Kotlin plugin into the InteliJ source tree. > Kotlin support for VSCode or other IDEs is not on the roadmap for the Kotlin team. Community initiatives in this respect are welcome. -- https://kotlinlang.org/roadmap.html > The next thing is also fairly straightforward: we expect Kotlin to drive th…

Thanks for your reply. You have a point, but there is to me still a difference between a "scratch-itch language created and a good biz model on top", and a "biz model that required a new language".

There is some legal stuff going on as well: Java was being monetized by Oracle and Google needed a way out. This helps Kotlin a lot imho. When then free-Java case totally lost, Google allows all to move to Kotlin and IntelliJ has the code translator tool (and will prolly get bought by Google at some point).

Re: Scala 3.0.0-M1

#63

Post by tastyminerals2 »

smabie wrote: post #4

I've always loved Scala and Scala 3 is shaping up to be extremely exciting. Love the new ADTs and braceless syntax: really gives the language a cleaner and more ML inspired feel. No other conventional language (including OCaml, F#, etc) seem to have the effortless kind of power Scala does. The combination of the extremely powerful type system with the "OOFP" paradigm is a great combination. OOFP is such a great parad…

Scala is weird. Sometimes it feels fluid and effortless but sometimes it simply cannot do things you would expect it to. For example, chaining custom methods. Why is it possible to do "arr.map(_.nonEmpty).filter(a => a % 2)" but not possible "arr.map(_.nonEmpty).myCustomFilter(_)"? In D thanks to UFCS and Properties you can chain all kinds of std and custom stuff together which looks more "efforless" and FP in my eyes.

Syntax aside I find Scala code hard to read due to how much implicitness it allows which stems from its "do FP or die" attitude which is again, weird for a language designed to incorporate both OOP and FP. Should I mention that in this regard D does a better job at serving the both worlds?

And finally, which threw me off completely is a real world case where we had to implement a word-entropy based algorithm to process tons of textual data and it appeared to be not much faster than a Python version despite all the optimization we tried to do. Scala is fast but there are many faster languages including Java itself. Considering the fact that its compiling times force you to leave your seat for a cup of coffee, you'd rather think of investing into another hard FP friendly language like Rust which simply has a wider applicability area. But yeah, this is all speculative but if you are thinking about what next language to pick up, these things start to matter.

Where Scala fits nicely is a small team which needs to build some business logic on top of the existing Java backend stack quickly and have a reliable working system. This is where it really shines. Scala provides a nice layer for JVM devs who have a soft spot for FP, safe and elegant solutions.

Re: Scala 3.0.0-M1

#64

Post by tastyminerals2 »

valenterry wrote: post #47
misja111 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flexibility is perfectly fine when you're programming something on your own. But when you're in a team, or worse, in a large company, it starts to be a problem that everyone can use their own style. It's much easier to read someone else's code when you have a common code style. And in Scala there are not only many different ways to use the standard libraries or to structure your code, there is a pure FP vs OOP-st…

The opposite. If I write code on my own just for myself I use the highest level of brevity. But if I write code for a team, then in some places I will use explicit type annotations and variable names to aid people unfamiliar with the code to understand what's going on. What you are saying is pretty much "it's easier when everyone only uses nails, because then all I have to bring is a hammer". I think it's good to use…

If it was so simple as just using explicit types :) And this sort of flexibility is exactly why Scala is hard to read. Perl is another example of a great language that allows you a lot of flexibility. In fact, the ability to use just any symbol for a method is the worst thing about Scala. You quickly realize it once you start using Scala libraries some of which basically introduce you to a new Scala based DSL. This quickly becomes a nightmare to work with if several such libraries are used in the project.

Re: Scala 3.0.0-M1

#65

Post by valenterry »

tastyminerals2 wrote: post #63
smabie wrote: post #4

I've always loved Scala and Scala 3 is shaping up to be extremely exciting. Love the new ADTs and braceless syntax: really gives the language a cleaner and more ML inspired feel. No other conventional language (including OCaml, F#, etc) seem to have the effortless kind of power Scala does. The combination of the extremely powerful type system with the "OOFP" paradigm is a great combination. OOFP is such a great parad…

Scala is weird. Sometimes it feels fluid and effortless but sometimes it simply cannot do things you would expect it to. For example, chaining custom methods. Why is it possible to do "arr.map(_.nonEmpty).filter(a => a % 2)" but not possible "arr.map(_.nonEmpty).myCustomFilter(_)"? In D thanks to UFCS and Properties you can chain all kinds of std and custom stuff together which looks more "efforless" and FP in my eye…

There are no "special" methods in Scala. If you see something like "arr.map(_.nonEmpty).filter(a => a % 2)" in the standard library, you can use that syntax yourself too.

E.g. "arr.customlyFiltered()" is easy to do. Or even easier "arr.filter(myCustomFilter)". If something doesn't work out for you, please feel free to use e.g. scalafiddle.io and make it example, then you will be helped! :)

Scala is indeed not a high performant language. It is as fast as Java and compiles as fast as Java if you only use Java's features. However, then why use Scala in the beginning?

Scala is great for writing very maintainable and reusable code, especially with a big team and a lot of business logic. It is also great to "glue" things together like you can do it with Python. For these things it has more than sufficient performance in my opinion.

Re: Scala 3.0.0-M1

#66

Post by lmm »

dtech wrote: post #23
pjmlp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the JVM, I think Scala won't have any major issues it is just another guest language and isn't used to sell InteliJ licenses. Kotlin is chaining itself to Android, it will rule there thanks to Google's sponsorship, on everything else it is just yet another language to chose from with a weaker eco-system, used to sell InteliJ licenses.

Kotlin has significant support from the largest Java ecosystem: Spring. In my experience it's also much more compatible with Java/JVM libraries. In Scala that's perfectly possible but leads to very un-idiomatic code, in Kotlin you barely notice.

> In my experience it's also much more compatible with Java/JVM libraries. In Scala that's perfectly possible but leads to very un-idiomatic code, in Kotlin you barely notice.

I think that's actually reversing as Kotlin and Java diverge. E.g. interop with Java Optionals is very easy in Scala (and they obviously correspond directly to Scala Options) whereas it's harder to make them fit with Kotlin nullable types. And Kotlin's "suspend functions" are unlike anything else and mean you have to understand a concept of "inline" that changes the semantics of the function it applies to; e.g. calling a Java function that takes a callback from an async function is straightforward in Scala, but not so much in Kotlin.

Re: Scala 3.0.0-M1

#67

Post by lmm »

aliakhtar wrote: post #29
rethab wrote: post #2

Scala 3 is a huge change. As someone who used Scala for years, but always wondered whether they can retain their users with competition from Kotlin, I'm extremely curious what this will mean for Scala in the long run. I'm skeptical, because the cost to migrate is big. But I'm hopeful, because Scala is a language I like to write code in. Edit: why am I skeptical? I know scala 3 is largely meant to be backwards compati…

I have a pretty large codebase written in scala 2.12 or so (whatever the version was around late 2018). I'd like to migrate it to scala 3. Any ideas how hard it'll be?

Pretty easy unless you were writing custom collections or custom macros, IME.

Re: Scala 3.0.0-M1

#68

Post by fluffything »

tastyminerals2 wrote: post #63
smabie wrote: post #4

I've always loved Scala and Scala 3 is shaping up to be extremely exciting. Love the new ADTs and braceless syntax: really gives the language a cleaner and more ML inspired feel. No other conventional language (including OCaml, F#, etc) seem to have the effortless kind of power Scala does. The combination of the extremely powerful type system with the "OOFP" paradigm is a great combination. OOFP is such a great parad…

Scala is weird. Sometimes it feels fluid and effortless but sometimes it simply cannot do things you would expect it to. For example, chaining custom methods. Why is it possible to do "arr.map(_.nonEmpty).filter(a => a % 2)" but not possible "arr.map(_.nonEmpty).myCustomFilter(_)"? In D thanks to UFCS and Properties you can chain all kinds of std and custom stuff together which looks more "efforless" and FP in my eye…

> you'd rather think of investing into another hard FP friendly language like Rust which simply has a wider applicability area.

FYI Aaron Turon did their PhD on Concurrency+Scala, and ended up leading the Rust core team for more than enough years.

Re: Scala 3.0.0-M1

#69

Post by tastyminerals2 »

JD557 wrote: post #46
smabie wrote: post #4

I've always loved Scala and Scala 3 is shaping up to be extremely exciting. Love the new ADTs and braceless syntax: really gives the language a cleaner and more ML inspired feel. No other conventional language (including OCaml, F#, etc) seem to have the effortless kind of power Scala does. The combination of the extremely powerful type system with the "OOFP" paradigm is a great combination. OOFP is such a great parad…

> Too bad there's not really a ML/AI ecosystem around (besides Spark, which seems to be losing favor partially because of its embarrassing performance), because using Python is such a drag. I think it's not that bad. Sure, it loses to Python, but that's some tough competition. Personally, I find that smile[1] covers most use cases. Breeze[2] also has a lot of love, but I'm not much of a fan of the `UFunc` abstraction…

Many if not most Scala data/ML libraries are one-person projects which are either abandoned or have compatibility issues. It's a barren land and loses to any similar Python library in terms of functionality. It's good that Java ecosystem can back Scala up otherwise it would be pretty sad.

Re: Scala 3.0.0-M1

#70

Post by MaxBarraclough »

valenterry wrote: post #19
rgoulter wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For me scala's feature set is absurdly big and there are always 10 ways todo things. One of my favourite examples: of these 13 different ways of doing the same thing, only 12 are correct. https://nurkiewicz.github.io/talks/2014/scalar/#/22

How is that a bad thing? It's the same in other languages and it is nice to have some flexibility. E.g. lisp: use whichever type of parentheses you want Or Kotlin: use short syntax lambdas fruits.filter(it == apple) or long syntax fruits.filter(fruit -> fruit == apple) or with annotated types: fruits.filter{fruit: Fruit -> fruit == apple} Sometimes brevity is good for the reader, sometimes more details are good for t…

> How is that a bad thing?

This doesn't quite answer your question, but, the Python community takes seriously the idea of There's Only One Way To Do It, as part of their philosophy on complexity.

https://wiki.python.org/moin/TOOWTDI

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/

Post reply on HN