4 ms·

Scala is super complex, introduces breaking changes all the time, is super slow to compile, multi-language projects are also complex, and the decisions that are

by vips7L 4y ago

Scala is super complex, introduces breaking changes all the time, is super slow to compile, multi-language projects are also complex, and the decisions that are right for Scala may not be right for Java.

oweiler 4y ago
Scala is also on the way out, adoption is steadily decreasing.
- halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
  I'm not sure I would characterize it as "steadily". I think it's leveled off but I would agree it's not gaining any market share currently.
- hf_twink 4y ago
  Yep, we’re migrating away from it at work too, too many problems, too slow to work with, and too much breaking.
bcrosby95 4y ago
I wish Scala leaned into being a Haskell-like (opinionated statically typed functional language) for the JVM rather than a kitchen sink.
- suresk 4y ago
  There was definitely a large and vocal part of the community that wanted that, but I think early on there was a lot of tension between Scala being "better Java" and "Haskell for the JVM", and that probably hindered a lot of adoption.
- gigatexal 4y ago
  Hmm I was thinking of learning Scala. Good to know it’s on the down trend.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    I wouldn’t take these trends too seriously - scala is still huge, and the recent revamp (scala 3) might turn that “trend” around. Also, learning a language with new idioms is always worth it, regardless of whether you end up using it.
ebruchez 4y ago
The "super complex" and "introduces breaking changes all the time" comments are unsubstantiated FUD. Scala has evolved a lot in the last few years, particularly in the area of binary compatibility. It's a wonderful language and I can only recommend others try it. This from a programmer very happy with Scala.
- vips7L 4y ago
  And this is from a programmer that is not happy with Scala. Every single time I've upgraded the compiler there is a breaking change. They don't strictly follow semver. Most recently upgrading from the 2.11 to 2.13 compiler they made breaking serial version uid changes (I know don't use java serialization, but that wasn't my decision) and none of it was noted in the release notes. When it comes to super complex just look at any of the type signatures of the standard library for collections: def ++[B >: A, That](that: GenTraversableOnce[B])(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[IndexedSeq[A], B, That]): That Comparing this to Java it is "super complex". IntelliJ can't even figure out the types sometimes.
  - suresk 4y ago
    And then when a dependency of one of your dependencies is broken agains the latest version. I know some of this has been cleaned up, but it is one of the main reasons I no longer use Scala - I have a rule about how long I'm willing to spend on build issues vs actually writing code, and Scala was always on the wrong side of that. re: Complexity - At least the signatures for the core collections have been cleaned up a fair amount. That said, the richness of the type system and the prevalence of operator overloading always made it feel like a language you could be really productive in once you knew the language and the current codebase really well, but was really hard to just read through unfamiliar code and know what is going on.
    - kagakuninja 4y ago
      > And then when a dependency of one of your dependencies is broken agains the latest version How is this any worse than Java? My most vexing dependency-hell issues have involved breaking API changes to Hamcrest matchers and Apache Http Client; more recently Jackson-databind. All of those are Java libraries, brought in via transitive dependencies, usually from Java libraries.

by vips7L 4y ago

oweiler 4y ago

Scala is also on the way out, adoption is steadily decreasing.

halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
I'm not sure I would characterize it as "steadily". I think it's leveled off but I would agree it's not gaining any market share currently.
hf_twink 4y ago
Yep, we’re migrating away from it at work too, too many problems, too slow to work with, and too much breaking.

bcrosby95 4y ago

I wish Scala leaned into being a Haskell-like (opinionated statically typed functional language) for the JVM rather than a kitchen sink.

suresk 4y ago
There was definitely a large and vocal part of the community that wanted that, but I think early on there was a lot of tension between Scala being "better Java" and "Haskell for the JVM", and that probably hindered a lot of adoption.
gigatexal 4y ago
Hmm I was thinking of learning Scala. Good to know it’s on the down trend.
- kaba0 4y ago
  I wouldn’t take these trends too seriously - scala is still huge, and the recent revamp (scala 3) might turn that “trend” around. Also, learning a language with new idioms is always worth it, regardless of whether you end up using it.

ebruchez 4y ago

The "super complex" and "introduces breaking changes all the time" comments are unsubstantiated FUD. Scala has evolved a lot in the last few years, particularly in the area of binary compatibility. It's a wonderful language and I can only recommend others try it. This from a programmer very happy with Scala.

vips7L 4y ago
And this is from a programmer that is not happy with Scala. Every single time I've upgraded the compiler there is a breaking change. They don't strictly follow semver. Most recently upgrading from the 2.11 to 2.13 compiler they made breaking serial version uid changes (I know don't use java serialization, but that wasn't my decision) and none of it was noted in the release notes. When it comes to super complex just look at any of the type signatures of the standard library for collections: def ++[B >: A, That](that: GenTraversableOnce[B])(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[IndexedSeq[A], B, That]): That Comparing this to Java it is "super complex". IntelliJ can't even figure out the types sometimes.
- suresk 4y ago
  And then when a dependency of one of your dependencies is broken agains the latest version. I know some of this has been cleaned up, but it is one of the main reasons I no longer use Scala - I have a rule about how long I'm willing to spend on build issues vs actually writing code, and Scala was always on the wrong side of that. re: Complexity - At least the signatures for the core collections have been cleaned up a fair amount. That said, the richness of the type system and the prevalence of operator overloading always made it feel like a language you could be really productive in once you knew the language and the current codebase really well, but was really hard to just read through unfamiliar code and know what is going on.
  - kagakuninja 4y ago
    > And then when a dependency of one of your dependencies is broken agains the latest version How is this any worse than Java? My most vexing dependency-hell issues have involved breaking API changes to Hamcrest matchers and Apache Http Client; more recently Jackson-databind. All of those are Java libraries, brought in via transitive dependencies, usually from Java libraries.