4 ms·

You didn't mention Scala. It has access to all Java libraries, and it doesn't force you to into a single fixed mindset like Haskell's purity at all costs. That

You didn't mention Scala. It has access to all Java libraries, and it doesn't force you to into a single fixed mindset like Haskell's purity at all costs. That said, it doesn't seem to have taken off, and it doesn't really look like it will. Not sure why, though I hear a lot of complaints about compile speeds.

plinkplonk 8y ago
"you didn't mention Scala" my hypothesis (and it is only that) is that trying to unite FP and OO, as Scala tries to do, leads to unnecessary complexity in learning and usage. Also see 'tooling'. That said, many impressive + widely deployed systems have been built with Scala, which is more than other typed FP languages can claim.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  OCaml also tries to unite FP and OO, it is right there on its name.
  - lmm 8y ago
    Yes and no. It's possible to ignore the OO features and use OCaml purely as a functional language, in a way that you can't really do in Scala.
lmm 8y ago
I've been doing Scala full-time for several years, so as far as I can see it's taken off pretty well. I can't really claim it has a welcoming community though (though many of the most unpleasant people are those who've apparently quit the language, but still hang around and hassle people).
pkolaczk 8y ago
Compile speeds are a problem of the past. When you use Scala 2.12+ together with incremental compilation with modern Zinc-based compile server, compiling Scala after each change takes a low few seconds. Sometimes less than a second. And Dotty (Scala 3) shall improve compile times even further.
bad_user 8y ago
I've been a Scala developer since 2012. Not sure what "taking off" means in the context of programming languages, but for me it's been popular enough since 2012. Several big companies use it and I've introduced Scala (and FP in Scala) at about 3 companies thus far ... it isn't a tough sell if the company is Java-friendly. We also have a great, active community developing libraries. As a shameless plug here are the projects I've been working on: 1. https://monix.io https://monix.io 2. https://github.com/typelevel/cats-effect https://github.com/typelevel/cats-effect Scala is one of the best languages for FP these days. Note I'm not saying that it's perfect. We can certainly improve it and a lot of improvements are coming in Scala 3.
- throwaway661 8y ago
  Are you hiring in Bucharest office?
bunderbunder 8y ago
I use Scala quite a bit, and I just can't bring myself to regard it as a functional language. It's a kitchen sink language ("multiparadigm" when I'm in a polite mood) that happens to support a lot of nice things from FP, but with a distinctly object-oriented flavor. There are add-on libraries like ScalaZ and Cats that are meant to make it easier to follow a more thoroughly functional style, but, even with those, I can't shake the feeling that I'm swimming against the current if I try to take a functional-first approach.
mmirate 8y ago
JVM interoperability saddles Scala with all of Java's correctness holes e.g. the Billion-Dollar Mistake.

plinkplonk 8y ago

"you didn't mention Scala" my hypothesis (and it is only that) is that trying to unite FP and OO, as Scala tries to do, leads to unnecessary complexity in learning and usage. Also see 'tooling'. That said, many impressive + widely deployed systems have been built with Scala, which is more than other typed FP languages can claim.

pjmlp 8y ago
OCaml also tries to unite FP and OO, it is right there on its name.
- lmm 8y ago
  Yes and no. It's possible to ignore the OO features and use OCaml purely as a functional language, in a way that you can't really do in Scala.

lmm 8y ago

I've been doing Scala full-time for several years, so as far as I can see it's taken off pretty well. I can't really claim it has a welcoming community though (though many of the most unpleasant people are those who've apparently quit the language, but still hang around and hassle people).

pkolaczk 8y ago

Compile speeds are a problem of the past. When you use Scala 2.12+ together with incremental compilation with modern Zinc-based compile server, compiling Scala after each change takes a low few seconds. Sometimes less than a second. And Dotty (Scala 3) shall improve compile times even further.

bad_user 8y ago

I've been a Scala developer since 2012. Not sure what "taking off" means in the context of programming languages, but for me it's been popular enough since 2012. Several big companies use it and I've introduced Scala (and FP in Scala) at about 3 companies thus far ... it isn't a tough sell if the company is Java-friendly. We also have a great, active community developing libraries. As a shameless plug here are the projects I've been working on: 1. https://monix.io https://monix.io 2. https://github.com/typelevel/cats-effect https://github.com/typelevel/cats-effect Scala is one of the best languages for FP these days. Note I'm not saying that it's perfect. We can certainly improve it and a lot of improvements are coming in Scala 3.

throwaway661 8y ago
Are you hiring in Bucharest office?

bunderbunder 8y ago

I use Scala quite a bit, and I just can't bring myself to regard it as a functional language. It's a kitchen sink language ("multiparadigm" when I'm in a polite mood) that happens to support a lot of nice things from FP, but with a distinctly object-oriented flavor. There are add-on libraries like ScalaZ and Cats that are meant to make it easier to follow a more thoroughly functional style, but, even with those, I can't shake the feeling that I'm swimming against the current if I try to take a functional-first approach.

mmirate 8y ago

JVM interoperability saddles Scala with all of Java's correctness holes e.g. the Billion-Dollar Mistake.