soc88

21 ms·

181.
by soc88 15y ago
This is not my experience. I don't give a dime about higher-kinded types, type bounds, type views, type constraints, CanBuildFrom ... and I'm happily using the language.
182.
by soc88 15y ago
That was not the question. It is trivial to do that in Scala for the use case mentioned. The problem is adding it as an "instance" method to a collection and expecting that it is usable by something not being a collection at all.
183.
by soc88 15y ago
And because Ruby devs think it is so great, they try to make it more Scala-like, right? Or what am I missing?
184.
by soc88 15y ago
You pretty much point to solutions which don't solve the problem mentioned in the blog post at all and seeing how C# extension methods basically reintroduced instanceOf checks as an implementation necessity I'm pretty sure that extension me
185.
by soc88 15y ago
> First of all, the things he shows aren't inherently complex: adding an additional function to the existing collections library is something that's possible in other languages in less confusing ways > "I want to add a method to all
186.
by soc88 15y ago
Yet another Dart post making no sense at all.
187.
by soc88 15y ago
> I like to make things that solve problems Then you're probably using the wrong language. :-)
188.
by soc88 15y ago
Using various parts of the original compiler as a asynchronous, interruptible, focused service for use in IDE. This fixes the problems usually occurring when people have to re-implement type checkers/compilers, see for example the problems
189.
by soc88 15y ago
Great, thanks for the info! Finally IntelliJ Scala got a serious competitor. The features in the video look great, hopefully they also work like that in practice!
190.
by soc88 15y ago
A great release in my opinion, and a brand new web site, too.
191.
Announcing the Scala IDE for Eclipse 2.0(blog.typesafe.com)
1 points by soc88 15y ago|1 comments
192.
by soc88 15y ago
Before clicking on „comments“ I wondered how long it would take the John Gruber brigade to declare it non-relevant. Thanks for answering my question.
193.
by soc88 15y ago
While it takes a while to understand how he approaches problems and solves them, his offer is honest and his judgment is correct. He basically says that if the blog author actually had a look at the language before bashing it, he would have
194.
by soc88 15y ago
What makes it even more disturbing is that those who say “it is too complicated” are the arm-chair experts who never used the language (just have a look at the recent flame baits). :-/
195.
by soc88 15y ago
Exactly. Those “type systems experts” and “academics” who usually get bashed for mocking “Java Joe”s are normally those who say “have a look at it, it isn't hard”.
196.
by soc88 15y ago
I pretty much like the Eclipse plugin. The IntelliJ one is still better, but the Eclipse one definitely gets its stuff done. Sounds a bit like you used an old version ...
197.
by soc88 15y ago
> "You are wrong.You haven't learned it properly" Do you have a link? Maybe this unhelpful behavior can be figured out in person. I always experienced the Scala community as a very friendly and helpful one, focused on getting stuff done
198.
by soc88 15y ago
That people even had the idea that a "C replacement" doesn't need a way to define its own data structure is frightening.
199.
by soc88 15y ago
Sounds like you never actually used it.
200.
by soc88 15y ago
They combined the worst parts of Java with the worst parts of JavaScript. - Verboseness - Patterns - No type safety (combined with that dishonest “optional typing” non-sense) - No traits (didn't they get the memo that single implementation
201.
by soc88 15y ago
Would have been interesting if Dart wouldn't have been such an atrocious, bad joke of a language.
202.
by soc88 15y ago
That's pretty much what I think every time he spends time on his anti-Scala rants. Maybe he should switch the language? Looking at Lift's source code/API this is pretty much a abuse of the language.
203.
by soc88 15y ago
I spent zero time on it. And I regularly run my code against 2.9 and 2.10 trunk. No problems so far.
204.
by soc88 15y ago
Thank you, great overview.
205.
by soc88 15y ago
I think it is very constructive and I expect that improvements caused by it will land in trunk soon.
206.
by soc88 15y ago
Because I actually have used it, which separates me from “experts” like Colebourne.
207.
by soc88 15y ago
Yet another language obsolete after Java 8. That's exactly what people need.
208.
by soc88 15y ago
I'd consider that Scala is pretty much on the “good taste” side. The features are very orthogonal and thought-out and much of the old legacy cruft is removed.
209.
by soc88 15y ago
I had pretty much expected "Programming in Scala", considering it was called "JVM-based" and not "Java-based" ...
210.
by soc88 15y ago
LOL

More ›