3 ms·

Yeah, but the cool thing about Scala is that you get to pick the kind of polymorphism you want, depending on whether the list of Nouns will evolve versus the li

Yeah, but the cool thing about Scala is that you get to pick the kind of polymorphism you want, depending on whether the list of Nouns will evolve versus the list of Verbs. Like, those case classes are also classes that can have polymorphic methods on them. So for example, you can do this: https://gist.github.com/alexandru/2604948978c497adc8e2 https://gist.github.com/alexandru/2604948978c497adc8e2 - instead of doing this: https://gist.github.com/alexandru/41acda9bdd694bec38b2 https://gist.github.com/alexandru/41acda9bdd694bec38b2 Which variant is better, it depends, but both versions have tradeoffs, depending on direction. Also, Scala's OOP blend with FP is best in breed. In Ocaml for example is like having 2 type-systems in the same language, whereas in Scala it's more like a turtles all the way down kind of thing which I like.

jfb 12y ago
Also, Scala's OOP blend with FP is best in breed. In Ocaml for example is like having 2 type-systems in the same language, whereas in Scala it's more like a turtles all the way down kind of thing which I like. This is a perfectly reasonable stance to take; I think my Objective-C background would have me argue that it makes more sense to keep two distinct paradigms syntactically distinct, but that's a matter of taste. I haven't done anything serious with OCaml -- perhaps that's a direction I'll explore after my Haskell toy project is finished. Thanks for the replies, you've shed much light. And the OP is great, too; I'll definitely be keeping it close at hand.