3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoMy 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 agoI 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 agoScalaz has (or should have) ascii names for every method I believe. If you can find examples otherwise we can fix it.
- znpy 10y agoThis 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 agoCan 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.