>2017 >Not programming in Scala

>>60076621

Hey bigdatafag, we all know 2yrs ago you were just a SQL programmer.

File: 14767188-Rejection-Stock-Photo-disgusted-woman-face.jpg (168KB, 1300x997px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1300x997px

>being a code monkey

>>60076636
>Scala
>Code monkey
Nigga please

>>60076621
Scala has largely been superseded by Kotlin, which brings most of Scala's good stuff (syntax sugar, functional programming), without the bad sides (retardedly complex type system).

Kotlin is super comfy to use, I once wrote a raytracer using just a giant chain of map/flatMap/reduce calls.

>>60078411

I will check this out when I have the time. Sounds interesting.

>>60076636

>Not making 6 figures doing what you like

>>60076621
Because Clojure is superior.

>>60078809
>laughingsluts.jpg

>>60076621


I know this is a "Cunningham's Law" thread, but I'll bite..

I looked into Scala, and the first steps were really cool. It was much more consistent than Java, had a nice Syntax that reminds on Haskell or Ruby and of course you have the (optional) functional aspects like immutable values, tail recursion and so on. With the Akka framework you can use Erlang's actor modell, which is god tier. And last but not least you can use the Java Play Framework which is quite a good thing.

So far, so good. And I really enjoyed my first few programms in Scala..

But the more you learn about scala, the more you understand how deep the rabbit hole goes. What starts like Haskell somehow ends up like C++, an awful lof of incredibly complex functions. A lot of times I had this "here be dragons!" feeling, functions that just leave a big exclamation mark in your head. Bjarne Stroustrup once said: "C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off."
The same seems to apply for Scala:

>oh, you used tail recursion HERE? No silly, this will slow your programm down, better use a normal for-loop.
>

The C++ comparison goes deeper:
Like you can write good and clean C++ which looks more or less like C with classes or you can write nigthmarish arcane code. So why not using C with good libraries in the first place?

Scala could have been the better Java, if they just could have stopped halfway and make it a small, clean and powerfull "functional Java" langauge, it would have been awesome.

But you just have way too many ways to accomplish things, a lot of Syntax to remember, a lot of functions that you have to hande with care. Things like Implicit Parameters give me nightmares.

Also there are some quirks you don't notice at the beginning, like Type inference Gotchas.


tl; dr:
If you want to do crazy stuff and are not afraid of a steep learning curve to learn the pitfalls of a deep and complex langauge, Scala is clearly more sexy than Java. But I'm not sold on it.

>>60078411
Kotlin is okay but it hasn't superseded Scala in any way. Scala is the language with Spark, Akka, sbt, Slick, Play, Scalatra and many other production things. Kotlin has basically nothing other than Kotlin.

>>60079283
Scala not being pure FP but also quite C++/Java like has made it viable for actual production big processing and big data in hundreds of companies, whether its most of the application stack or just a message preprocessing / passing queue that needs to be fast.

Nothing else managed to really do that on such a diverse range of server tasks with such relative ease.

>>60079453

Hi Martin!

>Scala not being pure FP but also quite C++/Java like

I never said I have problems with Scala not being a pure functional language. Even though some people don't like this I think it's nice to opt-in regular Java if you want to (or have to).

But Scala is just overly complicated. I can let C++ get away with that, because it's a very old language and they have an incredible amount of legacy code..

We don't have the 90s anymore. Today you have so many top notch langauges and high quality frameworks, you ahve to compete against them all. You have to justify why something takes 90 days to learn instead of 30 days. You have to think about the risk of technological debts, of course Scala programmers are much harder to find (and mroe expensive) than Java or Python programmers.

So I would argue for your examples, it's the other way arround:
With Scala you can attract experienced Java Senior Devs that are getting "bored" with plain old Java. But those guys could build incredibly good servers with many differnt languages if you would let them.

Don't get me wrong:
Scala has a lot of good things, but unfortunately there are some parts of the language that are bad. And the philosophy of a "scalable" language, where you can use the nice part and simply ignore the dark side of the moon doesn't work for me. What if I have to maintain something that uses such things? I doen't work for me.

If someone uses Scala I will not look down on the person, but for me it's not worth putting in that much effort (unless I should decide to take a ride on the "big data meme train" one day).

File: sf.png (126KB, 759x628px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 759x628px

>>60076621

> 2017
> still thinking scala is a better choice than OCaml

>>60079588
Yes, Scala doesn't make already easy (in Java) problems much easier due to some extra learning being required, and its not ideal for bored Java developers either. How about beer & hookers in your free time, eh?

It is for "meme" (actually present all over the place and a many billions-of-dollars-already market) scale. Big data, big processing, and all that. The problem today already starts at a single machine but eventually you may want to add (rent, purchase...) more machines without rewriting everything, and Scala has frameworks that work really well. Unlike everyone else that produced poor results or only results with rare unicorn expert programmers for decades.

>>60076621
>2017
>Programming in a language that basically repeats Ds mistakes

>scala
java virtual machine crap
No thanks.