3 ms·
> but idiomatic Scala, as far as I've seen, encourages terseness and the use of opaque punctuation-laden operators This is not idiomatic Scala. http://docs.sc
by saryant 12y ago
> but idiomatic Scala, as far as I've seen, encourages terseness and the use of opaque punctuation-laden operators
This is not idiomatic Scala.
http://docs.scala-lang.org/style/naming-conventions.html#symbolic_method_names http://docs.scala-lang.org/style/naming-conventions.html#sym...
> Avoid! [...] As a general rule, symbolic method names should be well-understood and self documenting in nature. The rule of thumb is as follows: if you need to explain what the method does, then it should have a real, descriptive name rather than a symbols. There are some very rare cases where it is acceptable to invent new symbolic method names. Odds are, your API is not one of those cases!
- benburton 12y agoI think this is actually the crux of the issue. The language gives you enough rope to hang yourself with, and when people do hang themselves with it, those who look in from the outside throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- saryant 12y agoI think that's definitely it. That old Dispatch periodic table has done a lot of damage to Scala's reputation IMO (even though it's no longer used by Dispatch). Looking at the major Scala libraries and frameworks today, I don't see a ton of symbolic operators in use. Akka just has ! and ? (both of which have very obvious uses once you understand actors), Play only uses them for iteratees (which most devs will never have to think about, plus it provides named equivalents for all of them), SBT has been cutting back. Outside of scalaz, the problem seems to be under control.
- tormeh 12y agoScalaz is not even ASCII. That shit's seriously scary.