- About Scala
- In the Enterprise
- Scala Community
- Language Research
- In the Press
- The Scala Team
- Scala's Prehistory
- Contact Us
- Learning Scala
- Tour of Scala
- Scala API
- Setup & Getting Started
- Programming Guides
- Other Guides
- Code Examples
- Scala Developers
Fwd: Scala, Scala you got me worried
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sss fredo <sssfredo [at] gmail [dot] com>
Date: Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: [scala-user] Scala, Scala you got me worried
To: Ricky Clarkson <ricky [dot] clarkson [at] gmail [dot] com>
Ricky, my point are mainly general but I mentioned code from a specific coder twice. Frankly, you and some other forum members defend your precious language like its some sort of religion with Martin as a demi God - its pretty sickening when you act like that!
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Ricky Clarkson <ricky [dot] clarkson [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:
Then complain about it in private, or find some equivalent code.
Can't be hard, if we all suck.
2009/3/13 sss fredo <sssfredo [at] gmail [dot] com>:
> Sorry, Ricky it not accessible by the public and not my code to post.
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Ricky Clarkson <ricky [dot] clarkson [at] gmail [dot] com>
>> Can you point at the code that you find difficult to understand?
>> Perhaps one of us can help.
>> 2009/3/13 sss fredo <sssfredo [at] gmail [dot] com>:
>> > Scala, I know you quite well now but our relationship is on the rocks.
>> > Scala doesn't give enough guidance to the programmer on whether to adopt
>> > a
>> > functional or object orientated programming style. I know choice is
>> > sometimes good - but its not for many programmers - they need guidance
>> > not a
>> > plethora of arbitrary options.
>> > Scala is a write once, then throw away and re-write for the next person.
>> > Yup, Im looking at a senior Scala expert's code right now and its not
>> > pretty
>> > or understandable, nor am I a Scala beginner.
>> > Scala implicits are a failed experiment. I like to know whats going on
>> > in a
>> > program. With implicits, I have no idea until I guess and track down the
>> > implicit. I think languages that optionally drop strong typing
>> > (Objective C,
>> > Groovy) are more honest, in that the don't purport to achieve strong
>> > typing
>> > when there is none.
>> > Scala imports of methods using import x.ClassName._ means I have to rely
>> > on
>> > yet unwritten IDE support to know where a method came from.
>> > Scala and its forum are confused as to whether a language should be
>> > quick to
>> > write, terse, verbose or easy to read. Yup you know what I'm talking
>> > about,
>> > things like using "_" or "/:" or how about leaving off the return type
>> > on a
>> > complex function.
>> > Scala functional programming is not as good as Haskell. I know only a
>> > little
>> > Haskell, but when I read it, it makes sense. When Scala is written in a
>> > functional style it looks more verbose and much less readable.
>> > Scala functional programming is spaghetti code. Im reading a senior,
>> > well
>> > known, Scala functional programmer's code and it reminds me of the worst
>> > rubbish I saw from procedural programming 10-20 years ago. Do all
>> > functional
>> > programmers have a need to stuff as much logic in two lines as possible.
>> > Who
>> > said vertical space is bad?
>> > Scala forum members have very big heads. I am sick of hearing how much
>> > above
>> > Java life Scala life is - I've waited and waited but you guys still
>> > haven't
>> > produced enough to back this assertion up.