5 ms·

I mean, there are tons of features in Haskell that one misses when using Scala. The type system isn't as useful, Scala's version of ADTs (case classes) are real

by wyager 10y ago

I mean, there are tons of features in Haskell that one misses when using Scala. The type system isn't as useful, Scala's version of ADTs (case classes) are really inconvenient to work with, different typeclass system, etc. Can't speak for clojure.

smt88 10y ago
I know that Clojure has its warts, but it seems to have a better reputation in the functional community than Scala. Scala seems to want to support all paradigms (or many paradigms simultaneously), whereas Clojure was created to be more tuned to FP.
- shark0 10y ago
  The difference between Clojure and Scala is that Clojure is a dynamically typed LISP whereas Scala is statically typed. In the FP community, in general, statically typed languages have a better reputation and are considered to be more tuned to FP. Yes, Scala mixes OOP and FP but OCaml(famous FP language if you've never heard of it) also does exactly that.
  - didibus 10y ago
    I wouldn't agree to that. LISPs were the first Functional Languages as FP has its roots in Lambda Calculus. Scala is much more multi-paradigm, and I think its further away from the FP languages. Even Wikipedia agrees: "An interesting case is that of Scala[28] – it is frequently written in a functional style, but the presence of side effects and mutable state place it in a grey area between imperative and functional languages." A lot of FP practitioners tend to come from academia and most of the research currently lies in provability, so a lot of the FP community seems interested in strongly typed languages, because they overlap the language research communities, but I doubt anyone in the community would claim they are more tuned to FP, because that's just a lie. In fact, a lot of the challenge of typed FP languages is designing a type system powerful enough to express all types of functions, so they're often more restrictive in how they can implement FP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming
    - shark0 10y ago
      Yes, Scala is multi-paradigm and it support OOP as well as imperative programming but the community is very much dedicated to FP. All I see is typed FP that expands my mind.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
      A lot of lisp people get testy when you call lisp a functional language.
paulddraper 10y ago
It goes the other way too though. Records, for example.

by wyager 10y ago

smt88 10y ago

I know that Clojure has its warts, but it seems to have a better reputation in the functional community than Scala. Scala seems to want to support all paradigms (or many paradigms simultaneously), whereas Clojure was created to be more tuned to FP.

shark0 10y ago
The difference between Clojure and Scala is that Clojure is a dynamically typed LISP whereas Scala is statically typed. In the FP community, in general, statically typed languages have a better reputation and are considered to be more tuned to FP. Yes, Scala mixes OOP and FP but OCaml(famous FP language if you've never heard of it) also does exactly that.
- didibus 10y ago
  I wouldn't agree to that. LISPs were the first Functional Languages as FP has its roots in Lambda Calculus. Scala is much more multi-paradigm, and I think its further away from the FP languages. Even Wikipedia agrees: "An interesting case is that of Scala[28] – it is frequently written in a functional style, but the presence of side effects and mutable state place it in a grey area between imperative and functional languages." A lot of FP practitioners tend to come from academia and most of the research currently lies in provability, so a lot of the FP community seems interested in strongly typed languages, because they overlap the language research communities, but I doubt anyone in the community would claim they are more tuned to FP, because that's just a lie. In fact, a lot of the challenge of typed FP languages is designing a type system powerful enough to express all types of functions, so they're often more restrictive in how they can implement FP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming
  - shark0 10y ago
    Yes, Scala is multi-paradigm and it support OOP as well as imperative programming but the community is very much dedicated to FP. All I see is typed FP that expands my mind.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    A lot of lisp people get testy when you call lisp a functional language.

paulddraper 10y ago

It goes the other way too though. Records, for example.