244 ms·
I really do like Scala, however I also find it to be similar to C++ in the sense that lots of the Scala code I've read seems to be written by people who trade s
by pivo 13y ago
I really do like Scala, however I also find it to be similar to C++ in the sense that lots of the Scala code I've read seems to be written by people who trade simplicity of implementation for being able to use every single feature of the language all at once. In other words, people unable to resist the urge to be too clever.
Sometimes the result is Scala source files that almost appear to be written in different languages, or lots of little libraries each with their own wacky DSLs that require a major investment of time to comprehend just to accomplish something that should be trivial.
These sorts of abuses you really don't see in Clojure even though it's just as possible in that language. Of course this is all based just on my experience, YMMV.
- ericssmith 13y agoI think DSLs, heavy use of operators, and Unicode characters as identifiers isn't abuse. It's unfamiliar. In Haskell, for instance, syntax is taken much more seriously than in other languages, which tend to just copy previous languages in the name of familiarity. And it takes a while to become use to the basic syntax of Haskell, let alone the various libraries that extend on its ideas. But the syntax choices are not arbitrary. But even Clojure is syntactically heavy compared to Racket or CL. But with good reason. A powerful and expressive language takes effort, possibly even years, to become expert in. I'm not sure that making trivial things trivial is part of the plan. There are more appropriate languages for that.
- narwally 13y agoI really appreciate Clojure's syntactic heaviness when compared to other LISPs. Just by using braces for associative data structures, and brackets for array's makes scanning through Clojure code much nicer because of the added visual cues.