4 ms·

1. The type system is too complicated. 2. It's difficult to find implicits. If I am looking for a Haskell typeclass instance, I know it will probably be define

• frowaway001 12y ago
  > I know it will probably be defined either in the same module as the type, or the same module as the typeclass Just like in Scala. > I couldn't work out where to find implicits. Click on the squiggly lines? (Or hover over the indicator next to the line numbers?)
• imosquera 12y ago
  Yah, it's not easy to find the implicit and definitely need to use a solid IDE to track these things down. I've gained enough experience now that I can track things down quickly but it's taken me a while to get here. I wonder if others will be willing to do the same or adoption of the language will stagnate.
• papauschek 12y ago
  It's easy to get lost in the type system if you use type-complex frameworks like Slick. Right now, there are a lot of frameworks to choose from and to evaluate. And there are a lot of "experiments" going on. I think that this will improve as the community matures and settles on fewer ways to do things. We've been using Scala now for 18 months in production, and I sometimes feel that library designers need to step back and try to not overuse the power of the language.