News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Scala turns 10. Parent comment

Re:Scala turns 10 by saryant on Monday January 20, 2014 @11:01AM (#7090118)
The problem is the real world doesn't always leave you with a choice. If you need to interface with a database that's got a table with 43 columns, good luck using Slick. Need to serialize it to JSON? Play-Json isn't going to like that.

I'm very much looking forward to fixing this ridiculous situation. Onboarding a new hire to Scala with this being the first thing they run in to isn't pretty.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scala turns 10 by kclay on Monday January 20, 2014 @01:52PM (#7091122)
Have to agree.. I ran into this when on the first time using Scala ,when I thought it would be fun to learn the language and a framework at the same time (Play). After initial crying for a bit I gave up trying to reason why this limit was put in place and just nested my data structure.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scala turns 10 by neverminder on Monday January 20, 2014 @11:24AM (#7090254)
It's a problem that I contemplate every day. More often than not I have to resolve to using Map in which case I have to use external JSON library, because like you mentioned - Play JSON is not that friendly with anything else than case class.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scala turns 10 by saryant on Monday January 20, 2014 @11:28AM (#7090277)
We've resorted to an ugly nested case class structure. We like Play-Json overall, it works well even with large (>100mb) JSON objects, but we'd love to not deal with that. TBH, it's a bigger problem with Slick where you we can't just mess with the schema since other systems use the same DB.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scala turns 10 by VLM on Monday January 20, 2014 @11:51AM (#7090420)
"We've resorted to an ugly nested case class structure."

Yes the same here, and I haven't found an idea that's overall better, taking everything into account.

[ Parent | on HN ]