3 ms·

Note that unconventional symbols are very rare in the standard library. Third-party libraries, especially those made by the scaskell community, are where the pr

by tormeh 11y ago

Note that unconventional symbols are very rare in the standard library. Third-party libraries, especially those made by the scaskell community, are where the problem lies. If one uses scalaz one gets what one deserves. Edit: replaced "you" with "one" to clarify

k__ 11y ago
Never used scalaz. I looked into stuff like Lift and Play
- lmm 11y ago
  Lift is worse than Scalaz and barely maintained. I can't speak for Play; I use Spray for REST APIs (somewhat symbolic, but oh so worth it for the glorious routing DSL that combines the clarity of a config file with the refactorability and safety of code) and Wicket for HTML UIs.
  - k__ 11y ago
    Yes, it was probably 2009, that I looked into Lift when it was considered THE Scala web framework. But later Play seemed to have taken the place.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Just an example of spray: get { path("foo" / IntNumber) { itemId => { complete("You just looked for foo #" + itemId) } } Or: path("foo") { parameter('id.as[Int] ?) { (maybeId: Option[Int]) => { ... } } } I can't say I have any objection to this bizarre use of symbology.
  - flippant 11y ago
    Someone asked recently on the mailing list if Lift is dead. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/liftweb/dA5NUjkqB-4 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/liftweb/dA5NUjkqB-4
    - brianwawok 11y ago
      Link didn't work for me, but I suspect Lift has been dead for a while. It was fine for the time, but if you want a full framework Play is pretty much better in every way, and if you want a light framework you have Akka-HTTP and others..
      - flippant 11y ago
        Sorry https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/liftweb/dead/liftweb/dA5NUjkqB-4/OLBvtUVSDAAJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/liftweb/dead/lift...
gh02t 11y ago
I was going to mention Haskell as being similar. Lots of custom infix operators. On the one hand, once you know a library's custom operators it can make for very clean code, but it can be tough to read code for a library you don't know. I guess it's mitigated a bit by the fact that a lot of Haskell operators generalize well, so the same symbols tend to be used to do something similar, but it can be abused.

by tormeh 11y ago

k__ 11y ago

Never used scalaz. I looked into stuff like Lift and Play

lmm 11y ago
Lift is worse than Scalaz and barely maintained. I can't speak for Play; I use Spray for REST APIs (somewhat symbolic, but oh so worth it for the glorious routing DSL that combines the clarity of a config file with the refactorability and safety of code) and Wicket for HTML UIs.
- k__ 11y ago
  Yes, it was probably 2009, that I looked into Lift when it was considered THE Scala web framework. But later Play seemed to have taken the place.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Just an example of spray: get { path("foo" / IntNumber) { itemId => { complete("You just looked for foo #" + itemId) } } Or: path("foo") { parameter('id.as[Int] ?) { (maybeId: Option[Int]) => { ... } } } I can't say I have any objection to this bizarre use of symbology.
- flippant 11y ago
  Someone asked recently on the mailing list if Lift is dead. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/liftweb/dA5NUjkqB-4 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/liftweb/dA5NUjkqB-4
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    Link didn't work for me, but I suspect Lift has been dead for a while. It was fine for the time, but if you want a full framework Play is pretty much better in every way, and if you want a light framework you have Akka-HTTP and others..
    - flippant 11y ago
      Sorry https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/liftweb/dead/liftweb/dA5NUjkqB-4/OLBvtUVSDAAJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/liftweb/dead/lift...

gh02t 11y ago

I was going to mention Haskell as being similar. Lots of custom infix operators. On the one hand, once you know a library's custom operators it can make for very clean code, but it can be tough to read code for a library you don't know. I guess it's mitigated a bit by the fact that a lot of Haskell operators generalize well, so the same symbols tend to be used to do something similar, but it can be abused.