dancapo

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by dancapo 13y ago

   Wikipedia goes a long way, you know? You could do a lot worse than get it from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_%28functional_programming... The term monad comes straight from Category Theory, a branch of math
2. 2.▲
   by dancapo 13y ago

   One of the goals of Scala was having good interoperability with Java. This might not look important today, where considering different languages is ok, but it was certainly the case years ago, when programming environments were monolingual
3. 3.▲
   by dancapo 13y ago

   The thing is, support for arbitrary header is there: RawHeader, defined as a pair of header name and header value strings.
4. 4.▲
   by dancapo 13y ago

   There's a lot that could be criticized about Scala, but that article is a criticism of the author, for me who actually knows something about Scala. It starts with a criticism of a build system that is most likely SBT. Now, for all its
5. 5.▲
   by dancapo 13y ago

   Scala has dependent type support, so, yes, it is quite more powerful than most languages in widespread use. You can look at the Shapeless library to see that at work. However, that is not really what's going on... though Scala type sys
6. 6.▲
   by dancapo 13y ago

   I see some objective problems with your analysis: it looks more like you expect to be true than assertion of facts, and it is filled with misconceptions. You expect that mixing oo and fp aspects cannot work, and deduce problems from that ex