4 ms·

As the author of this post mentioned the culture of the Java developers, the "architect" thing and the frameworks, Scala has its own similar problems: it attrac

As the author of this post mentioned the culture of the Java developers, the "architect" thing and the frameworks, Scala has its own similar problems: it attracts a group of academics on type systems and creates over-engineering in a completely different direction. Also, while I think Scala is simple at its core concepts and syntax, it gets complex because it has too many features and tries to support all features present in other programming languages. Why do you want structural typing there?. Also, I hated sbt.

frowaway001 12y ago
> it gets complex because it has too many features and tries to support all features present in other programming languages Which things do you have in mind? > Why do you want structural typing there? Isn't that a simplification? Instead of saying "here are types which you can use as e. g. parameter types, and here are types which you can't use (like in Java)", it says "all types work the same way".
- dmacvicar 12y ago
  I understand what it is. I don't see the need of it if you already have a class-based system. Go uses structural typing. But it is the only thing they have. Rust has traits, and it is the only thing they have. I can't think now of more stuff but I remember you could even write xml in the language.
  - frowaway001 12y ago
    > I don't see the need of it if you already have a class-based system. Like in Java? new Object() { void foo() {}}.foo(); // Works Ooops. The point about XML is so stale already that I won't even bother commenting on it.
    - dmacvicar 12y ago
      You seem to be stuck in the topic of how useful structural typing is. Which I agree with.
      - frowaway001 12y ago
        Eh what? No. I couldn't care less about structural types. I care about simple, consistent rules. "X is a type, you can use it wherever you want" is one. "X is a type, but there is also Y, which you can't really express in position A and B unlike X, but can only use it if you carefully avoid doing things #1 to #4" isn't one.
        dmacvicar 12y ago
        I agree with partly with you. I don't think it helps for consistency when you have to ask yourself why some functionality is defined in terms of a trait if it could be defined in terms of the structural type and just providing the methods would be sufficient.

frowaway001 12y ago

> it gets complex because it has too many features and tries to support all features present in other programming languages Which things do you have in mind? > Why do you want structural typing there? Isn't that a simplification? Instead of saying "here are types which you can use as e. g. parameter types, and here are types which you can't use (like in Java)", it says "all types work the same way".

dmacvicar 12y ago
I understand what it is. I don't see the need of it if you already have a class-based system. Go uses structural typing. But it is the only thing they have. Rust has traits, and it is the only thing they have. I can't think now of more stuff but I remember you could even write xml in the language.
- frowaway001 12y ago
  > I don't see the need of it if you already have a class-based system. Like in Java? new Object() { void foo() {}}.foo(); // Works Ooops. The point about XML is so stale already that I won't even bother commenting on it.
  - dmacvicar 12y ago
    You seem to be stuck in the topic of how useful structural typing is. Which I agree with.
    - frowaway001 12y ago
      Eh what? No. I couldn't care less about structural types. I care about simple, consistent rules. "X is a type, you can use it wherever you want" is one. "X is a type, but there is also Y, which you can't really express in position A and B unlike X, but can only use it if you carefully avoid doing things #1 to #4" isn't one.
      - dmacvicar 12y ago
        I agree with partly with you. I don't think it helps for consistency when you have to ask yourself why some functionality is defined in terms of a trait if it could be defined in terms of the structural type and just providing the methods would be sufficient.