frowaway001

17 ms·

91.
by frowaway001 12y ago
If you consider Wikipedia a good example of what PHP can do, we have irreconcilably different quality standards. I think the technical debt of PHP is a huge reason why development of the software behind Wikipedia hasn't fixed any of th
92.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Why the hell would anyone ever use PHP for anything?
93.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Well, I guess the difference is that I'm not the one who brings up Scala, it's the customers.
94.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> Python/Ruby(and Rails) and node I think every professional developer is happy when all the hipster kids moved to those platforms.
95.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Maybe you are just working for the wrong customers/company. I decided to never do Java again, and until now I have zero complaints, because I have plenty of offers to pick from.
96.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> IMO sbt already hit the high-water mark and is receding, lots of shops using scala today advocate using mvn. I haven't seen that at all in practice. I think that's just a bit of noise on the internet. SBT keeps getting better
97.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> securityRepresentation and pcaRepresentation are the same thing Why? The path to V is obviously different, that's the whole point of it. If I wanted them to be the same, I wouldn't need to write it that way.
98.
by frowaway001 12y ago
It's pretty easy to come up with multiple ones. Just one, to not prevent you from doing your own research: Type-checked build definitions. I lost days to debugging broken Maven setups were some tags were misspelled or placed at the wro
99.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> What's SBT offer over maven? Lack of XML, with more trendy markup and new bugs? Like I said, immature. Maybe you should do some research and figure out the answer for yourself, then you wouldn't jump to weird conclusions.
100.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> we've got Maven, it's arguably the best solution in any language for a very difficult problem that has stopped entire language ecosystems in their tracks Wait wut? Are you drunk? :-) My experience is that SBT works great, whi
101.
by frowaway001 12y ago
I'm extremely happy with SBT.
102.
by frowaway001 12y ago
If your type system requires explaining things to a computer, your type system sucks, not static typing. I use types because the compiler can explain things to me.
103.
by frowaway001 12y ago
It's also not very useful.
104.
by frowaway001 12y ago
I'd say not too good. Of course there are those two projects everyone mentions, Grails and Gradle, but I would say it's more correct to describe them as the only two niches where Groovy is actually used a bit, it's not like G
105.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Why would you ever _not_ want typechecking?
106.
by frowaway001 12y ago
We were discussing quality, not popularity.
107.
by frowaway001 12y ago
How is this related to the topic?
108.
by frowaway001 12y ago
I think the difference is that stuff is less hastily cobbled together. People use additional libraries because they add value, not because they paper over ugliness and holes of existing libraries. Scala feels "designed", while Jav
109.
by frowaway001 12y ago
LOL. So basically "I want X, but languages which give me X are excluded, because that would hurt my claim"? Especially compared to Scala.js and Fay, I don't see the point of going backward to a slightly improved JavaScript ag
110.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> yet another syntax to learn! ++: \ ~> and so on... Syntax? Not seeing any syntax here.
111.
by frowaway001 12y ago
It's quite easy to disallow all of that.
112.
by frowaway001 12y ago
So we now have |&:| |&mut:| |:| at declaration-site and an optional move at use-site, in addition to obfuscating hashfn: |&String| -> uint to either <F>(hashfn: F) where F : FnMut(&Strin
113.
by frowaway001 12y ago
You appear to be advocating a new: [ ] functional [ ] imperative [x] object-oriented [x] procedural [ ] stack-based [ ] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [x] eager [ ] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed [ ] pure [x]
114.
by frowaway001 12y ago
When people complain about poor IDE support, they are usually ex-Java developers which are accustomed to pretty much the best IDEs available (every tried writing Java without an IDE? It sucks.). Scala IDE support is already better than IDE
115.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Thanks for your helpful information! I think as soon as scala.meta is released, it will be vastly simpler to write your own refactorings (like converting tests using test library X to test library Y). From what I have seen on Parleys, the p
116.
by frowaway001 12y ago
I don't want to cause false hopes, but I think the roadmap is quite conservative and designed to no disappoint people if things don't go according to the plan. (Especially with people complaining that the next few releases don&#x2
117.
by frowaway001 12y ago
I think this is the announcement I had in mind, I'd just take the published roadmap with a grain of salt, because usually things ship when they are ready and fit into the whole picture. As seen in dotty, the basic stuff around union ty
118.
by frowaway001 12y ago
I think he meant that he would prefer not having to deal with an array where types are all over the place.
119.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> Maybe someday the Scala team will see the light and we will get them as well. Sadly I am not holding my breath, adopting innovations like union types were what drew me to Scala. Something like this isn't even on the docket for the
120.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Of course not. (I'm also starting to believe that these "Haskell is the best thing ever"-kids will become a bigger issue than all those "Haskell is not practical"-naysayers for the growth and success of Haskell. The

More ›