4 ms·

You have inferred more about me than you are entitled, and even if you were right, your argument is still poor. Have you read the c# stdlib? It is in no way an

You have inferred more about me than you are entitled, and even if you were right, your argument is still poor. Have you read the c# stdlib? It is in no way any better. Stdlibs are always more complex than the code that builds on them, and that is by design. The same code that I use for a oneliner has to be robust enough to apply to play, akka, spark, finagle, etc. That is the primary reason why StdLib documentation is made more accessible. I have never had to read the Scala StdLib source code, and likely a tiny minority of Scala devs have done so.

jbooth 12y ago
I inferred that you probably use standard library collections. Not really an insulting inference, it'd be insulting to assume you didn't. Personally, I make it a habit to always read (or try to read, in this case) standard library source code that I'm depending on to be correct.
- ezy 12y ago
  Have you read the implementation of the python collection types (list, map, etc.)?
Alphasite_ 12y ago
The internals of STDlibs tend to be nasty, but externally they're designed to be clear. The problem here is externally these interfaces are extremely messy and hard to follow, i.e. the abstraction doesn't seem to work.
- hrjet 12y ago
  That is a good distinction to make. But then, you need to consider other factors as well. How powerful is the API, how honest is the API (doesn't hide internal gimmicks), how consistent is the API across the lib, and how DRY it is (to the STDlib implementors). Scala's STDlib might be more powerful, more honest and more consistent, and also might be striving to be DRY for the implementors. Personally, I feel that Scala's Collections goes overboard in hitting the above goals, and the resulting signatures are too verbose. And this increases the cognitive load for the subset of people that need to bother about it (performance tuners, architects, etc). But that's not a fault of the language per se.

jbooth 12y ago

I inferred that you probably use standard library collections. Not really an insulting inference, it'd be insulting to assume you didn't. Personally, I make it a habit to always read (or try to read, in this case) standard library source code that I'm depending on to be correct.

ezy 12y ago
Have you read the implementation of the python collection types (list, map, etc.)?

Alphasite_ 12y ago

The internals of STDlibs tend to be nasty, but externally they're designed to be clear. The problem here is externally these interfaces are extremely messy and hard to follow, i.e. the abstraction doesn't seem to work.

hrjet 12y ago
That is a good distinction to make. But then, you need to consider other factors as well. How powerful is the API, how honest is the API (doesn't hide internal gimmicks), how consistent is the API across the lib, and how DRY it is (to the STDlib implementors). Scala's STDlib might be more powerful, more honest and more consistent, and also might be striving to be DRY for the implementors. Personally, I feel that Scala's Collections goes overboard in hitting the above goals, and the resulting signatures are too verbose. And this increases the cognitive load for the subset of people that need to bother about it (performance tuners, architects, etc). But that's not a fault of the language per se.