4 ms·

I think you missed the overall point of the author, which was that in order make a significant improvement at all, you need to make a radical shift in the model

by htor 12y ago

I think you missed the overall point of the author, which was that in order make a significant improvement at all, you need to make a radical shift in the modelling of the system. One of the problems mentioned was the inherent complexity of using a type system for modelling data. Scala is very type oriented and so as a result you will end up with a lot of types for everything there as well. Yes it's certainly easier to make a transition into Scala, but I don't think using Scala will solve the actual problem, even if it does have FP capabilities and encourage immutability.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
As I read the article, though, it's not just types. The fundamental problem was that nobody there had a good idea how to architect a Java application that large. So they threw out the Java, and replaced it with Clojure, which they had even less experience architecting. Sure, Clojure may have resulted in 100,000 lines instead of a million, but that's still a large enough system that architecture matters. Did they create another large mess? It seems reasonably likely that they did. Java's types aren't broken enough to force you into a terrible architecture. Trying to use them badly (that is, in the way that everybody seems to think that you're supposed to use them for enterprise apps) seems to be the actual culprit.