4 ms·

I think the author hit upon some pretty good points. Several years ago when I started poking around Scala I really had to push myself to work with it and espec

I think the author hit upon some pretty good points. Several years ago when I started poking around Scala I really had to push myself to work with it and especially with respect to simple thigns like do I download SBT or Scala. One of the more personally frustrating things I found as a newbie is that the bulk of the documentation seemed to be written as a reference. Compounding that was the un-googlable nature of some of the operators like ":<" which really made things more difficult than I felt that they needed to be. Regardless, although it was not what I would describe as a pleasant experience, after working with Scala for a few months I definitely found languages like Haskell a lot easier to comprehend. So, I obviously managed to internalize something. :-D

Fiahil 10y ago
> Compounding that was the un-googlable nature of some of the operators like ":<" Ah! souvenirs "- [..] Oh, but you have to use the epaulette function! - The what? - The epaulette! (>>>) it's like the zigouigoui, but you don't have to lift anything. Just flatMap that shit and you're good."
- saosebastiao 10y ago
  My biggest technical complaint about Scalaz. You can't effectively communicate concepts that involve nameless symbolic constructs, and slang as a replacement is inherently exclusionary.
  - adriaanm 10y ago
    I see how people might look at how close java & javax are, and think scala & scalaz are equally close. They are not. Scalaz is a completely separate project from the core Scala project.
  - runT1ME 10y ago
    Scalaz has (or should have) ascii names for every method I believe. If you can find examples otherwise we can fix it.
  - znpy 10y ago
    This reminds me of that short time I've been working with scala... I honestly think Scala is Perl on the JVM. I mean, the write-only unreadable-code part of Perl, but on the JVM.
    - the_af 10y ago
      Can you provide examples? There's a lot to criticize in Scala, but I can't find many examples of symbol soup, especially in user-written code. There is some, sure (most languages suffer from this to a degree), but so many you consider the language write-only? I just don't see it. Keep in mind Scalaz is not Scala.

Fiahil 10y ago

> Compounding that was the un-googlable nature of some of the operators like ":<" Ah! souvenirs "- [..] Oh, but you have to use the epaulette function! - The what? - The epaulette! (>>>) it's like the zigouigoui, but you don't have to lift anything. Just flatMap that shit and you're good."

saosebastiao 10y ago
My biggest technical complaint about Scalaz. You can't effectively communicate concepts that involve nameless symbolic constructs, and slang as a replacement is inherently exclusionary.
- adriaanm 10y ago
  I see how people might look at how close java & javax are, and think scala & scalaz are equally close. They are not. Scalaz is a completely separate project from the core Scala project.
- runT1ME 10y ago
  Scalaz has (or should have) ascii names for every method I believe. If you can find examples otherwise we can fix it.
- znpy 10y ago
  This reminds me of that short time I've been working with scala... I honestly think Scala is Perl on the JVM. I mean, the write-only unreadable-code part of Perl, but on the JVM.
  - the_af 10y ago
    Can you provide examples? There's a lot to criticize in Scala, but I can't find many examples of symbol soup, especially in user-written code. There is some, sure (most languages suffer from this to a degree), but so many you consider the language write-only? I just don't see it. Keep in mind Scalaz is not Scala.