4 ms·

It all started with Scala which was a decent, functional Java (at the time) and then they formed a commercial organisation called "TypeSafe" around it. Then it

by rockyj 4y ago

It all started with Scala which was a decent, functional Java (at the time) and then they formed a commercial organisation called "TypeSafe" around it. Then it took on VC money and then also renamed itself to "Lightbend" (for some reason). In this time, Akka which was one of the special library of Scala was also included in the Lightbend fold with many of the prominent devs. While I understand that open source developers also need to make money, I do not think this mode of operation is my favorite. When a programming language / library / tool takes on VC money it is just inevitable that they will need a mode of revenue in the near future and this is one way to do it. Anyways, between this and the Scala 2 -> 3 migration, I do not think I would recommend Scala to anyone now or touch it myself.

hocuspocus 4y ago
The trajectory of Lightbend has been raising doubts for a while, some would argue since the renaming. One important change coming with Scala 3 is precisely that its future doesn't depend on Lightbend's financial success anymore.
- morsch 4y ago
  How so? Aren't they the most significant contributor by far?
  - hocuspocus 4y ago
    Not directly no. The last major contribution from Lightbend employees was the big collections rewrite in the standard library (shared by Scala 2.13 and 3.x). The Scala 3 compiler and core tooling is developed by the LAMP, the Scala Center, VirtusLab and a few other people. Lightbend is maintaining Scala 2 compilers (2.11, 2.12, 2.13).
  - weego 4y ago
    They've always floundered around trying to find something that stuck that could also have a path to profit. Being around the edges of the tech orgs that went in early on Scala it often felt like the Scala ecosystem initially thrived (the likes of Twitter releasing genuine quality oss in particular) despite the lack-lustre job of Typsesafe / Lightbend to cement themselves at the center. With play being given to the community, lagom being underwhelming and a bit of a catch-the-wave thing, it's only really Akka that endures on top of the core language, which isn't really a great showing after so long.
    - tsss 4y ago
      They also developed Slick, which has been abandoned for a while now, unfortunately.
- the_af 4y ago
  > The trajectory of Lightbend has been raising doubts for a while, some would argue since the renaming. Definitely. I remember some of us Scala early adopters being concerned about the nonsensical name change, and being assured by others that nothing fundamental was being changed, that Lightbend was "a more user friendly name than TypeSafe" (as if the notion of type-safety was a barrier to entry for goddamn Scala, for crying out loud). Seems we skeptics were proven right.
scary-size 4y ago
Totally agree. Akka was a huge selling point for Scala. It's a huge loss for the ecosystem. Akka isn't "just" a library, it's a programming model. A lot of software is built around that model and it's going to be a painful effort to get rid of it. It made itself irreplaceable and now they're pulling the plug.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  There will just be a fork under a different name, starting from the last freely-licensed version. Right to fork is integral to FLOSS, specifically to protect against the whole "suppliers take the ball and go home" scenario.
  - tsss 4y ago
    Who will maintain it though? It's true that Lightbend is doing almost all of the development. There is no one else who knows the code base and no one willing to learn it, since Akka is pretty uncool nowadays.
    - leaflets2 4y ago
      Also, Akka is rare technology -- there aren't many well functioning actors and transactional memory implementations in the world. The number of people who can continue maintaining this, is small, and such people are mostly making lots of money doing other things already, I'd think. GP zozbot234, I'm guessing an OSS fork will go mostly unmaintained or start to source code rot, even if "maintained".
- IshKebab 4y ago
  It isn't lost though is it? Just slightly delayed. Honestly this seems like the lightest possible "our developers need to eat" solution out there. More relaxed than GPL or AGPL or open core. If you're against this then honestly I think you're an unrealistic radical who can be safely ignored.
  - scary-size 4y ago
jvican 4y ago
> It all started with Scala which was a decent, functional Java (at the time) and then they formed a commercial organisation called "TypeSafe" around it. Then it took on VC money and then also renamed itself to "Lightbend" (for some reason). In this time, Akka which was one of the special library of Scala was also included in the Lightbend fold with many of the prominent devs. IMO Scala still is a great functional alternative to Java. But this narrative you're laying out here is misrepresenting the reality. It's true Akka was a good way to get Scala adoption, but that stopped being the case a long time ago. Today, despite being still a bit niche, Scala has many other big Scala projects and frameworks that hold its weight. And, by the way, the Scala 2 -> 3 migration is being wonderfully executed, as it's been designed. No other high level language at this point promises the same set of binary compatibility (even across 2.13 and Scala 3) as Scala does, e.g. it's much better than Java, Python, Rust, etc.
the_af 4y ago
> they formed a commercial organisation called "TypeSafe" around it. Then it took on VC money and then also renamed itself to "Lightbend" My alarm bells were ringing as far back as that name change. Everyone I knew who used Scala thought the name change was silly and foreboding of bad things. "TypeSafe" has a nice, technical ring to it, and it embodied what we thought Scala was all about. Now, "Lightbend". Talk about a fluffy, meaningless, VC-friendly name. It sounded ominously wrong back then. I guess we skeptics were proven right after all these years...
- halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
  It's such an absolutely terrible name too. Could nobody at Typesafe come up with something less generic and soulless? Really astonishing how you can fuck it up so badly.

by rockyj 4y ago

hocuspocus 4y ago

The trajectory of Lightbend has been raising doubts for a while, some would argue since the renaming. One important change coming with Scala 3 is precisely that its future doesn't depend on Lightbend's financial success anymore.

morsch 4y ago
How so? Aren't they the most significant contributor by far?
- hocuspocus 4y ago
  Not directly no. The last major contribution from Lightbend employees was the big collections rewrite in the standard library (shared by Scala 2.13 and 3.x). The Scala 3 compiler and core tooling is developed by the LAMP, the Scala Center, VirtusLab and a few other people. Lightbend is maintaining Scala 2 compilers (2.11, 2.12, 2.13).
- weego 4y ago
  They've always floundered around trying to find something that stuck that could also have a path to profit. Being around the edges of the tech orgs that went in early on Scala it often felt like the Scala ecosystem initially thrived (the likes of Twitter releasing genuine quality oss in particular) despite the lack-lustre job of Typsesafe / Lightbend to cement themselves at the center. With play being given to the community, lagom being underwhelming and a bit of a catch-the-wave thing, it's only really Akka that endures on top of the core language, which isn't really a great showing after so long.
  - tsss 4y ago
    They also developed Slick, which has been abandoned for a while now, unfortunately.
the_af 4y ago
> The trajectory of Lightbend has been raising doubts for a while, some would argue since the renaming. Definitely. I remember some of us Scala early adopters being concerned about the nonsensical name change, and being assured by others that nothing fundamental was being changed, that Lightbend was "a more user friendly name than TypeSafe" (as if the notion of type-safety was a barrier to entry for goddamn Scala, for crying out loud). Seems we skeptics were proven right.

scary-size 4y ago

Totally agree. Akka was a huge selling point for Scala. It's a huge loss for the ecosystem. Akka isn't "just" a library, it's a programming model. A lot of software is built around that model and it's going to be a painful effort to get rid of it. It made itself irreplaceable and now they're pulling the plug.

zozbot234 4y ago
There will just be a fork under a different name, starting from the last freely-licensed version. Right to fork is integral to FLOSS, specifically to protect against the whole "suppliers take the ball and go home" scenario.
- tsss 4y ago
  Who will maintain it though? It's true that Lightbend is doing almost all of the development. There is no one else who knows the code base and no one willing to learn it, since Akka is pretty uncool nowadays.
  - leaflets2 4y ago
    Also, Akka is rare technology -- there aren't many well functioning actors and transactional memory implementations in the world. The number of people who can continue maintaining this, is small, and such people are mostly making lots of money doing other things already, I'd think. GP zozbot234, I'm guessing an OSS fork will go mostly unmaintained or start to source code rot, even if "maintained".
IshKebab 4y ago
It isn't lost though is it? Just slightly delayed. Honestly this seems like the lightest possible "our developers need to eat" solution out there. More relaxed than GPL or AGPL or open core. If you're against this then honestly I think you're an unrealistic radical who can be safely ignored.
- scary-size 4y ago

jvican 4y ago

> It all started with Scala which was a decent, functional Java (at the time) and then they formed a commercial organisation called "TypeSafe" around it. Then it took on VC money and then also renamed itself to "Lightbend" (for some reason). In this time, Akka which was one of the special library of Scala was also included in the Lightbend fold with many of the prominent devs. IMO Scala still is a great functional alternative to Java. But this narrative you're laying out here is misrepresenting the reality. It's true Akka was a good way to get Scala adoption, but that stopped being the case a long time ago. Today, despite being still a bit niche, Scala has many other big Scala projects and frameworks that hold its weight. And, by the way, the Scala 2 -> 3 migration is being wonderfully executed, as it's been designed. No other high level language at this point promises the same set of binary compatibility (even across 2.13 and Scala 3) as Scala does, e.g. it's much better than Java, Python, Rust, etc.

the_af 4y ago

> they formed a commercial organisation called "TypeSafe" around it. Then it took on VC money and then also renamed itself to "Lightbend" My alarm bells were ringing as far back as that name change. Everyone I knew who used Scala thought the name change was silly and foreboding of bad things. "TypeSafe" has a nice, technical ring to it, and it embodied what we thought Scala was all about. Now, "Lightbend". Talk about a fluffy, meaningless, VC-friendly name. It sounded ominously wrong back then. I guess we skeptics were proven right after all these years...

halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
It's such an absolutely terrible name too. Could nobody at Typesafe come up with something less generic and soulless? Really astonishing how you can fuck it up so badly.