Scala projects are difficult to maintain

Re:Scala projects are difficult to maintain by devonkim on Monday March 22, 2021 @02:29PM (#26544760)

Scala's operator overloading and implicits are known sharp edges (and don't get me started on XML literals) but the article doesn't mention those as hindrances for maintainability. Package dependencies are not necessarily a language issue and become more about conventions of its community. Comparatively, people aren't complaining about dependency problems in the Clojure, Java, and even Kotlin communities because everything's mostly been solved through the Maven dependency conventions that can depend upon JVM and compiler versions, too. In contrast, I'm not seeing much mention of this issue in Typescript except with the typesVersions and the Node ecosystem is mature at this point with known compatibility mechanisms.

So I'm here scratching my head at the point issues denoted in the OP wondering if I missed something critical about what makes Scala so different in its ecosystem conventions that a community couldn't fix over years. Even Node.js managed to work something out via Yarn

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scala projects are difficult to maintain by thu2111 on Monday March 22, 2021 @03:47PM (#26545848)

Lack of correct leadership.

Java, Kotlin, C# and TypeScript are led by companies that want usage. Scala was and still is primarily an academic exercise. Same problems as with Haskell - the leadership are paid to add random optimised-for-sounding-clever ideas to the language, not design a language in the gestalt that optimises for user success.

In particular TypeScript is not a research language and therefore the documentation, marketing, leadership etc doesn't strongly emphasise convoluted FP type theory. That means the sort of people who really want to go wild with that stuff stay away.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scala projects are difficult to maintain by devonkim on Tuesday March 23, 2021 @10:27AM (#26555425)

Scala's origins at EPFL under Odersky does give it a disadvantage given the history of academic origin languages in industry. OCaml was made at INRIA and it seems to have suffered the fate of becoming a niche language and toolchain for industry programmers. The Limbo programming language from Plan 9 didn't get very far until it was re-adapted and re-imagined as Go which has obviously gotten a lot of adoption from industry.

I'm not an either/or kind of person and don't see why a language suitable for academic purposes can't be broadly useful in industry, but I would also agree that leadership that has little background in certain use cases may not design and orient the language accordingly.

[ Parent | on HN ]