4 ms·

There are three and only three vague points conveyed in the article: (1) Scala has "immense" syntax, (2) Scala tries to support too many paradigms, and (3) the

by covi 12y ago

There are three and only three vague points conveyed in the article: (1) Scala has "immense" syntax, (2) Scala tries to support too many paradigms, and (3) the Iteratee library is hard to grasp. For (1): I disagree -- Scala's syntax is relatively easy to grasp. Perhaps the author meant constructs. For (2): people keep saying this but why not just stick with the way you are comfortable with? For (3): I don't see how this is a language issue; at the very least it shows that the author is unable to grasp a particular functional programming abstraction.

jbergens 12y ago
(1) I think you can safely assume that he means constructs. If he has spent years writing Scala he has surely grasped the syntax. (2) A team may have many people with different feelings about what they are comfortable with. This raises problems in an enterprise environment. (3) I can only guess that he feels the library is so hard that many developers with struggle with it. I think Go is an interesting language partly because they seem to keep it simple by choice.