4 ms·

Scala – A post-functional language (2010)

36 points by krat0sprakhar 12y ago

saryant 12y ago
Odersky has since changed his mind, he now calls it a modular language: http://parleys.com/play/53a7d2c3e4b0543940d9e536 http://parleys.com/play/53a7d2c3e4b0543940d9e536
- ExpiredLink 12y ago
  Yep, he has changed his mind. IIRC, he is now working on a Scala successor.
  - saryant 12y ago
    Dotty is just a research project. It's not necessarily intended as a Scala successor, more as an incubator for future improvements to Scala. At least, that's how it was discussed at Scala Days last month.
    - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
      Oddly enough, the mailing-list hasn't received a single email since May. Did it move somewhere else? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/dotty-internals https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/dotty-internals
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
_random_ 12y ago
Best languages combine programming paradigms (OOP, functional etc.). The very best ones combine type systems as well (static + opt-in dynamic).
- Psyonic 12y ago
  I assume you were referencing this, but just in case: http://www.scala-lang.org/api/current/index.html#scala.Dynamic http://www.scala-lang.org/api/current/index.html#scala.Dynam... Used quite pleasantly by Rapture JSON: http://rapture.io/jsonSupport http://rapture.io/jsonSupport
  - louthy 12y ago
    He/she may be referring to C# with its 'dynamic' type (and Dynamic Language Runtime)
  - pathikrit 12y ago
    Another dynamic library in Scala: https://github.com/pathikrit/dijon https://github.com/pathikrit/dijon
- Dewie 12y ago
  Why? You don't really give any reasons.
cies 12y ago
To me Scala is not so much "post-functional". To me it is "mixed-paradigm", which in the mix as Scala presents it, is scaring me.
- ionforce 12y ago
  Why does it scare you?
  - cies 12y ago
    A lot of keywords; too many to remember (a bit like C++). Simple things can have really scary types, because they facilitate both FP and OO ways of working with them. A very difficult conceptual model to wrap my head arround.
    - frowaway001 12y ago
      Can you give an example? > A lot of keywords; too many to remember Well, I think number of keywords and stuff like grammar size are pointless indicators, but Scala is pretty much at the bottom when you compare it to mainstream languages like Java or C#.
- ikusalic 12y ago
  I've heard it said that Scala is the new C++. But to me that doesn't sound bad at all. Sure, you can shoot yourself in the foot, but you can also design beautiful things, the choice is yours.
  - cies 12y ago
    Bad is not the good word. Being pragmatic is not "bad". But I think C++ too is scary in the complexity that it brings to the table.
wyager 12y ago
>A Postfunctional Language Is it a web-scale cloud big data language? >The essential parts of functional programming were all absorbed into Scala All the "essential" parts of functional programming are present in assembly (i.e. none of them). How can one possibly quantify "essential" here? A purely functional languages has a lot of benefits over a mixed-paradigm language, and vice versa.

36 points by krat0sprakhar 12y ago

Odersky has since changed his mind, he now calls it a modular language: http://parleys.com/play/53a7d2c3e4b0543940d9e536 http://parleys.com/play/53a7d2c3e4b0543940d9e536

ExpiredLink 12y ago
Yep, he has changed his mind. IIRC, he is now working on a Scala successor.
- saryant 12y ago
  Dotty is just a research project. It's not necessarily intended as a Scala successor, more as an incubator for future improvements to Scala. At least, that's how it was discussed at Scala Days last month.
  - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
    Oddly enough, the mailing-list hasn't received a single email since May. Did it move somewhere else? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/dotty-internals https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/dotty-internals
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

_random_ 12y ago

Best languages combine programming paradigms (OOP, functional etc.). The very best ones combine type systems as well (static + opt-in dynamic).

Psyonic 12y ago
I assume you were referencing this, but just in case: http://www.scala-lang.org/api/current/index.html#scala.Dynamic http://www.scala-lang.org/api/current/index.html#scala.Dynam... Used quite pleasantly by Rapture JSON: http://rapture.io/jsonSupport http://rapture.io/jsonSupport
- louthy 12y ago
  He/she may be referring to C# with its 'dynamic' type (and Dynamic Language Runtime)
- pathikrit 12y ago
  Another dynamic library in Scala: https://github.com/pathikrit/dijon https://github.com/pathikrit/dijon
Dewie 12y ago
Why? You don't really give any reasons.

cies 12y ago

To me Scala is not so much "post-functional". To me it is "mixed-paradigm", which in the mix as Scala presents it, is scaring me.

ionforce 12y ago
Why does it scare you?
- cies 12y ago
  A lot of keywords; too many to remember (a bit like C++). Simple things can have really scary types, because they facilitate both FP and OO ways of working with them. A very difficult conceptual model to wrap my head arround.
  - frowaway001 12y ago
    Can you give an example? > A lot of keywords; too many to remember Well, I think number of keywords and stuff like grammar size are pointless indicators, but Scala is pretty much at the bottom when you compare it to mainstream languages like Java or C#.
ikusalic 12y ago
I've heard it said that Scala is the new C++. But to me that doesn't sound bad at all. Sure, you can shoot yourself in the foot, but you can also design beautiful things, the choice is yours.
- cies 12y ago
  Bad is not the good word. Being pragmatic is not "bad". But I think C++ too is scary in the complexity that it brings to the table.

wyager 12y ago

>A Postfunctional Language Is it a web-scale cloud big data language? >The essential parts of functional programming were all absorbed into Scala All the "essential" parts of functional programming are present in assembly (i.e. none of them). How can one possibly quantify "essential" here? A purely functional languages has a lot of benefits over a mixed-paradigm language, and vice versa.