3 ms·
Regarding Go... perhaps the parent was harsh, but not wrong per se. I think a strong argument can be made for Go being a very poorly designed language with an e
by PeCaN 10y ago
Regarding Go... perhaps the parent was harsh, but not wrong per se. I think a strong argument can be made for Go being a very poorly designed language with an excellent community.
Scala certainly doesn't have high development overhead either. Build system more or less just works, plenty of libraries, minimal ceremony to do much. Don't get me wrong, I kinda hate Scala¹, but compared to _many_ languages it does have low development overhead.
¹ Disclaimer: haven't used Scala since 2.8. Maybe it's better now. Don't get your panties in a wad, but Scala is basically really shitty OCaml on the JVM in my mind.
- airless_bar 10y agoScala has been vastly improved since 2.8. If the experience you stated comes from Scala 2.8 I think you will love the way things are working currently. I wouldn't want to go back to 2.8 even if people paid me a ton of money. I love ML, but think OCaml is a poor ML. That's why I love Scala. It's extremely consistent, and design decisions are very considerate. It's an amazing language and I can express my intentions much better than in OCaml (no typeclasses, no higher-kinded types, etc.).
- PeCaN 10y agoI'll check it out again! Thankfully I'm no longer working with the JVM, so I doubt I'll use it much, but it could be fun to take another look at. Oh, and OCaml is possibly getting typeclasses (via modular implicits—not unlike Scala actually, for better or worse). It's not very painful if you use an alternate standard library (i.e. Core) that actually takes advantage of OCaml's amazing module system.