5 ms·

Here here. Im new to scala and I love it. Also sbt > maven!

• xxs 10y ago
  it's "hear, hear". The expression Comes from the English Parliament back in the 17th century.
  • m3talridl3y 10y ago
    Now the really puzzling question is: How would someone learn about this particular saying without seeing it in writing? Are there actually people still using "hear hear" in everyday speech?
    • blowski 10y ago
      The British Parliament still uses it frequently, as does my Grandad. It means "Hear Him!" as in "Listen to this guy, because he's right".
      • broodbucket 10y ago
        It's used in Australian parliament too.
    • gozur88 10y ago
      I've heard it in everyday speech, yes. I always assumed people pick it up from reading it, though.
    • godmodus 10y ago
      Ironically, I've have an English bachelors degree,and I've never seen it in writing before, till now! Language is active learning. There's no real way to avoiding these pitfalls, besides reading and engaging with others. I'm OK with it aslong as those offering corrections do it kindly. I've learned German, too. German is 'difficult', not because of its grammar, but because how mistakes are handled. Which is often with harsh commentary, ridicule or confusion. Not sure why that is the case, but English speakers are often kinder when offering corrections!
      • Singletoned 10y ago
        > Ironically, I've have an English bachelors degree I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a clever and subtle joke.
        • godmodus 10y ago
          As a defense I'll say this: I'm arab, grew up mostly on online and speak and write four languages. Their grammars do intertwine, and I can't help it much. my colloquialisms and vernacular are not on paar with that of a native speaker's - my academic work had a higher quality of writing due to proof reading and tight work with a thesaurus. And it's been a while since I was a student. Cut me some slack :p And I know I should've written 'i have' instead of 'i've' - in Arabic we say 'ill efforts blacken the face'
      • yellowapple 10y ago
        To disprove your last point: I'm curious as to how you achieved such a degree while using "till" as shorthand for "until". Are you sure your Bachelor's wasn't in agriculture? ;) Joking aside, I think it's a consequence of English being a very complicated language with all sorts of borrowing from different language families. There's almost no such thing as "correct" English, and attempts to reason about it in a prescriptive rather than descriptive manner will almost certainly fail. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up for debate, but mistakes happen either way, and I reckon the average English speaker to be a bit more cognizant of that, recognizing that nobody - oneself included - really has a perfect understanding of the English language.
        • ranko 10y ago
          "Till", in fact, predates "until". http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6989/what-is-the-difference-between-till-and-until http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6989/what-is-the-.... See, for example, the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer (1662): "Till death us do part".
          • 10y ago
    • aninhumer 10y ago
      Perhaps not in everyday speech, but they might hear it in a movie or a TV show.
    • richardknop 10y ago
      Yes there are. If you tune into House of Commons debates they still shout "Hear, hear" from time to time as a way to indicate their support with what current speaker is saying. So in UK you can still hear this phrase used in a speech, granted not everyday speech.
    • rusk 10y ago
      I hear this quite frequently in day to day speech. e.g. somebody makes a proposition in a meeting and another agrees. Also - have seen this a few times in Whatsapp chats, albeit often misspelled this way (-:
  • godmodus 10y ago
    Thanks for that!
• pierrehenrit 10y ago
  the sbt config has been the worth part for me. I could never fully understand the syntax (or let say API because it's scala, but really those operators ...).
  • godmodus 10y ago
    Yeah there's,some magic involved in the background for sbt, but Google helps :D
• jjgreen 10y ago
  sbt has a circular dependency
  • godmodus 10y ago
    Care to expand on that? might save us noobs trouble down the road!
    • jjgreen 10y ago
      https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/simple-build-tool/Wj5YZzPZ04U https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/simple-build-tool/Wj...
      • AzzieElbab 10y ago
        Did you actually read that?
        • godmodus 10y ago
          I did :p sort of reminds me of how haskell needs itself to Compile. Honestly, I don't see it as a problem.
          • AzzieElbab 10y ago
            It is way simpler than that. You can specify version of sbt's jar your project needs right in your build files. When you run any against your project it will download the version you specified if different from the one installed. It is not by any means a circular dependency.
          • jjgreen 10y ago
            That is the (build) circular dependency. OK if you are happy "downloading jars", but not if you are packaging for Debian: check the dates on this discussion https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639910 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639910 Gnu make does not need make to build (it includes a build shell script for that), gcc can be built using any C compiler via a 3-stage bootstrap. But sbt, it seems, can only be built by sbt.
• frant-hartm 10y ago
  Anyone who says sbt > maven should have been an egyptologist. I get you would enjoy deciphering hieroglyphs...
  • etrepen 10y ago
    If you prefer xml over sbt syntax then you've a serious problem. You might be a mediocre coder kid.
    • frant-hartm 10y ago
      Yes I do prefer XML. XML syntax is very simple, has very good IDE support (navigation, autocompletion - thanks to xml schema, etc.. can any IDE autocomplete dependencies from repository in .sbt files?). Maven itself provides good easy ways to reuse the configuration across multiple modules. If you exclude dependencies than for more complex projects the no of lines in pom.xml build files is somewhere between 50 - 100 % more, so it is not like .sbt (or gradle - which I find superior to both) is 10 times less verbose. Look at play https://github.com/playframework/playframework/blob/master/framework/build.sbt https://github.com/playframework/playframework/blob/master/f... Here is a list of few glyphs from there: ._ := () ++ ++= ]( % target := target.value / "sbt-routes-compiler", Seriously?
      • etrepen 10y ago
        > XML syntax is very simple Assembly is also very simple. Basic is also very simple. Why don't we program in these "simple" languages? > has very good IDE support (navigation, autocompletion - thanks to xml schema, etc.. can any IDE autocomplete dependencies from repository in .sbt files? Just like .sbt sources, since it's Scala + the SBT API + some operators. > If you exclude dependencies than for more complex projects the no of lines in pom.xml build files is somewhere between 50 - 100 % more, so it is not like .sbt (or gradle - which I find superior to both) is 10 times less verbose. SBT is a dsl in Scala. It's at least 10 times more powerful compared to java & xml. Even the dependency system is far simpler in .sbt files. XML is just bloated, full with noise and primitivity. Just like java. > or gradle - which I find superior to both Why? > Here is a list of few glyphs from there: ._ := () ++ ++= ]( % target := target.value / "sbt-routes-compiler", If you don't have a clue what's "++" and such operators and you're too lazy to search for it then you're not a programmer just a joke. Seriouly, how can you complaing about a few operators in a dsl?! "](" isn't even an operator, "[]" is the generic parameters' syntax while "()" are just parens. This is the problem with you java devs, you're too lazy to learn. And that's what hits your quality.
• TeMPOraL 10y ago
  At work? Definitely. It lets you do nothing for half a day while SBT is doing, well, _something_.