3 ms·
Definitely not the lack of experience, there was plenty of in-house Scala experience. I'm not the author, but he has indeed written about his experiences with S
by romanhn 8y ago
Definitely not the lack of experience, there was plenty of in-house Scala experience. I'm not the author, but he has indeed written about his experiences with Scala on his personal blog: http://evrl.com/programming/scala/2017/04/04/scala-part-ii.html http://evrl.com/programming/scala/2017/04/04/scala-part-ii.h...
- mopierotti 8y agoI wish he would have gone further into detail on why "stuff like Scalaz has no place outside academia". While I understand there's a bit of mental overhead, I've found there to be much real world utility in using that genre of libraries/patterns in production. It's also interesting that he wants the ability to "run your tests for the intermediate refactoring steps that wouldn’t typecheck and then let you fix up things later."-- I'm not sure what it means to want to run code with ambiguous types in a type aware language like Scala. Type information is deeply involved in runtime program behavior. (E.g pattern matching on types, resolving typeclass instances) I certainly agree that nontrivial sbt work is rough.
- jvican 8y agoI don't know what he meant by that either, but it's important to mention that `Scala != Scalaz` and that sbt is not the only build tool used in the community (and it's certainly not built by academics!).