3 ms·
I agree about no filter*, I disagree with your reasoning. Scala (2) as a language is quite simple. The complexity came from the incredible power of its building
by winwang 1y ago
I agree about no filter*, I disagree with your reasoning. Scala (2) as a language is quite simple. The complexity came from the incredible power of its building blocks (e.g. implicits and path-dependent types). The lack of filter, as I felt, was moreso on how different two Scala codebases could be. That was part of the point though -- a scalable language, which means changing to the needs of each team.
- pdimitar 1y agoWhich also means less transferable knowledge. That killed it for me. If you muscle through it you'll get there, sure, but in the meantime I found languages that have smaller surface, are just as (or more) productive, and you can be onboarded in a project in half an afternoon.