News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:We decided to go for the big rewrite by kod on Friday October 04, 2019 @10:09AM (#21157855)
> "Sure, Scala will work great! It's future-proof and everyone will love it!"

Scala is still the least-bad option for a JVM language.

Anyone who can't be productive in Scala (not "better java", not "worse haskell", Scala) isn't someone you want on your team anyway.

Re:We decided to go for the big rewrite by nemothekid on Friday October 04, 2019 @11:08AM (#21158431)
>Anyone who can't be productive in Scala (not "better java", not "worse haskell", Scala) isn't someone you want on your team anyway.

It’s funny that you gloss over one the big productivity issues with Scala. Somehow everyone who joins your team should be acutely aware of your flavor of Scala.

If the community decided if wanted to be a better java or a worse Haskell then I bet more people would be productive in Scala

Re:We decided to go for the big rewrite by kod on Friday October 04, 2019 @10:40PM (#21163518)
It's not "my" flavor of Scala, it's what it's designed for. It's a pragmatic, ML family language.

Read Odersky's book, write code, still have access to all JVM libraries and a lot less brain damage.

There are people that try to write worse Haskell in everything from Perl to Kotlin too. The reputation is overblown and has little to do with the actual language.

Re:We decided to go for the big rewrite by vips7L on Saturday October 05, 2019 @07:31AM (#21164964)
They also gloss over the huge productivity killers that are sbt and scalac. Compile times are almost as bad as C++ where I work. Sbt will be "Done compiling." and then hang for 15-20 minutes.
Re:We decided to go for the big rewrite by royjacobs on Friday October 04, 2019 @10:14AM (#21157902)
I would argue that in a sufficiently large organization you're better off using plain Java or perhaps Kotlin. The latter hits the sweet spot between 'expressive' and 'unreadable' whereas Scala can miss the mark.

I'm sure if you are very disciplined when writing Scala then this will not happen, etc etc. But the fact that people need to decide upfront which parts of Scala to use and which ones to avoid seem like red flags to me (and in fact were red flags, in my experience).

Re:We decided to go for the big rewrite by apta on Friday October 04, 2019 @10:43AM (#21158209)
With Java getting value types, record types, and pattern matching it will end up giving all the other JVM languages a run for their money. Today, Kotlin is much more approachable than Scala, not to mention better tooling. Once Java catches up though, it will be a different story.
Re:We decided to go for the big rewrite by vips7L on Saturday October 05, 2019 @07:36AM (#21164976)
Lots of good things coming for the jdk. I'm extremely looking for project loom (fibers) to land.

I expect kotlin to fall off everywhere except android once loom and the rest of project amber land.

Re:We decided to go for the big rewrite by mbo on Friday October 04, 2019 @01:44PM (#21160050)
When are higher-kinded types roadmapped for Java?
Re:We decided to go for the big rewrite by apta on Friday October 04, 2019 @01:59PM (#21160211)
I'm not aware that they are. It's a nice feature, but it might introduce unnecessary indirection is used inappropriately, that and the vast majority of languages get by without it without any significant hindrance.
Re:We decided to go for the big rewrite by julienfr112 on Friday October 04, 2019 @03:52PM (#21161288)
Yeah the team is productive. But only in the 20% left for real work between the interminable arguing over monads or circe or play or sbt or whatever.
Re:We decided to go for the big rewrite by kod on Friday October 04, 2019 @10:36PM (#21163499)
Doing real work in Scala for a decade. Never argued about any of that.
Re:We decided to go for the big rewrite by s_Hogg on Friday October 04, 2019 @10:12AM (#21157883)
> Scala is still the least-bad option for a JVM language.

Source, please?

> Anyone who can't be productive in Scala (not "better java", not "worse haskell", Scala) isn't someone you want on your team anyway.

Why is that?