4 ms·
Having worked with Scala I disagree it’s a safe choice. Scala is a huge, complicated, difficult language built on the huge (but very powerful) JVM. It’s also ha
by davedx 3y ago
Having worked with Scala I disagree it’s a safe choice. Scala is a huge, complicated, difficult language built on the huge (but very powerful) JVM. It’s also hard to hire Scala devs AND hard to train non Scala devs to write Scala, because it’s not a language you can learn in a weekend. (Speaking from experience)
- dboreham 3y agoAlso speaking from experience: Scala takes much less time to learn if you have someone familiar with regular programming concepts (not FP religion) to decode it for you. But ultimately agree, it's a bad choice for pretty much any purpose.
- davedx 3y agoMmm... depends, I guess. We had a team of JavaScript programmers and we (me included) needed to maintain the Scala back-end our client consumed, that was built by contractors a year or two previously and not really been worked on since then. It used Spray for routing, which IMO was the worst part of it, but there were a lot of other quite "cerebral" Scala-specific concepts in there too like implicits and other stuff that I forget now. A lot of it I'd never really come across before in any other programming language. Maybe if you're familiar with something like Haskell Scala is more straightforward to decode?
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago> Maybe if you're familiar with something like Haskell Scala is more straightforward to decode? Only if it's a particular flavor of Scala I think. Even then there's so much "excess" added by Haskell-esque Scala you'll have to develop the skill of mapping from one to another. A simple but realtively easy example is sum types in Haskell are case classes in Scala.