4 ms·
> Scala can also bring out the weirdness in programmers and create codebases that are incredibly difficult to follow, independent of the maintenance cost. Some
by tormeh 6y ago
> Scala can also bring out the weirdness in programmers and create codebases that are incredibly difficult to follow, independent of the maintenance cost. Some programmers are more interested in functional programming paradigms and category theory than the drudgery of generating business value for paying customers.
This is the tragedy of Scala. The maintenance cost is bearable. In return you get a language that dares to shed legacy cruft and fix bugs. Trash fire code bases, on the other hand, are hard to deal with.
- forty 6y agoTo be honest I'm also seeing this with Typescript for example. I have seen some much energy wasted just for the pleasure of using RambdaJS[1] with TS. It's probably even worse than with Scala, because at least with Scala the language is on your side to do FP. [1] https://ramdajs.com/ https://ramdajs.com/
- weatherlight 6y agoI've used typescript with lodash/fp (a similar FP library) and I found it to be an absolute joy. Once the team decided to really use lodash/fp for data manipulation, and the basis for composable logic, we really start to move quick. We came up with our own linting guide, and guidelines for writing extensible and composable code. I've never coded in Scala, but I've shipped production code in languages that support multiple paradigms. Conventions are important. Things need need to be agreed upon and done in a certain way or your code base will become a tangled mess.