This page is no longer maintained — Please continue to the home page at

Re: Re: What is highest priority for Scala to succeed in corporate world (Should be in scala-debate?) ?

4 replies
Jason Zaugg
Joined: 2009-05-18,
User offline. Last seen 38 weeks 5 days ago.
Guys, this is getting wildly off-topic for [scala-user]. 
Care to move over to [scala-debate] if there are points you feel warrant further exchanges?
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:07 PM, ticom <ticom81 [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:
Not true --- throwing words around makes people more comfortable with the concept.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Tony Morris <tonymorris [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:

"Historical context" is a fallacy as I said. You may keep saying it, or you may keep applying other magical attributes, but I am not superstitious and I reject your demands that I appease your superstitions. Appealing to "professionalism" while exhibiting the exact opposite just looks funny.
Joined: 2011-06-02,
User offline. Last seen 42 years 45 weeks ago.
Re: Re: What is highest priority for Scala to succeed in corpor


Joined: 2011-06-02,
User offline. Last seen 42 years 45 weeks ago.
Re: Re: What is highest priority for Scala to succeed in corpor


Ittay Dror 2
Joined: 2010-05-05,
User offline. Last seen 42 years 45 weeks ago.
Re: Re: What is highest priority for Scala to succeed in corpor
body p { margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0pt; }

Tony Morris wrote:
4EC2273A [dot] 1030601 [at] gmail [dot] com" type="cite">
On 15/11/11 18:24, Ittay Dror wrote:
Tony Morris wrote:
On 15/11/11 16:22, Ittay Dror wrote:
Not because the spec is complex, but
because the subjective minds of many developers deem it as complex. These
are the potential clients of the language. If they say the "product" is too
complex for them, they are right.
You don't see a great big gaping hole in this argument and this very
fact fascinates me endlessly.
it isn't a matter of logic, but of emotions. people are irrational. and still, i 
want to convince these developers to try and use scala. i do this for my own 
benefit: so that the next place i work in will be a scala shop. talking about 
specs and toughening up just doesn't win IMHO.

Does this "not a matter of logic" and "people are irrational" mantra
that is bandied about also mean I can dismiss your argument? Because it
sure is inviting it.
sure  you can. and if i'd be eager to convince you, i'd try to find a different approach.
4EC2273A [dot] 1030601 [at] gmail [dot] com" type="cite">

Tony Morris 2
Joined: 2009-03-20,
User offline. Last seen 42 years 45 weeks ago.
Re: Re: Re: What is highest priority for Scala to succeed in c
On 11/16/2011 11:09 AM, Kevin Wright wrote:
CABHxxC2Qt_TjCby0TxLGLNiNaW8WzhfPK1LXSi4dr3oV7vknbw [at] mail [dot] gmail [dot] com" type="cite">Oh, don't get me wrong, I believe that scalaz is often exactly the right solution to some specific problem or other.  The problem is that the *entirety* of scalaz often isn't the solution.

Of course it isn't. Indeed, it is part of the thesis -- it is very important to be able to draw clear lines of separation. Thankfully, functional programming gives us this, for real (in contrast to the ever-prevalent false promises).

CABHxxC2Qt_TjCby0TxLGLNiNaW8WzhfPK1LXSi4dr3oV7vknbw [at] mail [dot] gmail [dot] com" type="cite">
I personally feel no great guilt in re-implementing just |> if that's the only thing I need.  Even spring, which I generally hate, has a semi-sane SMTP templating library that I'll occasionally use.
Very rarely is a framework or library objectively evil, context is everything; and the cost/benefit analysis is always king

I think you're mistaken here. There are many libraries where the cost of touching them is enormous for little benefit. I could list a zillion Java libraries of this nature. Have you ever wondered why there is this strong compulsion to constantly rewrite certain libraries? When you think you have the answer, keep wondering.

CABHxxC2Qt_TjCby0TxLGLNiNaW8WzhfPK1LXSi4dr3oV7vknbw [at] mail [dot] gmail [dot] com" type="cite">

On 16 November 2011 01:51, Tony Morris <tonymorris [at] gmail [dot] com" rel="nofollow">tonymorris [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:
On 11/16/2011 10:45 AM, Kevin Wright wrote:
The counter-argument, of course, is how many "I"s does it take to reach some form of consensus?
Scalaz is a highly abstract solution for domains that have enough duplication within the sort of problem where scalaz excels.  Many don't, and this is just fine for both the domain and for scalaz.

There is a crucial, absolutely critical, distinction between "many don't" and "many believe that they don't." If you believe you haven't repeated an abstraction in Scalaz within the last hour of your using Scala, then you're just wrong. Many people can be wrong. Sometimes, many people can be wrong about *the same thing* -- I bet you could list 10 examples of this outside of computer science.

If you want to teach you (I mean any person here) where all your duplication is, then that's fine. If you don't, then that's fine too. But if you want me to accept that you're not repeating yourself over and over, then you're just not going to get that.

*Any* form of abstraction or indiscriminate use of a design pattern will seem overblown and excessively complex when used in a place where it isn't appropriate.
If you need scalaz, then that's cool.  If you don't, then that's also cool.  The only uncool things are pushing a framework on folks who don't need it, or criticising the same framework for people who do.

Nobody "needs" Scalaz. It's just a library with a subset that is required to get anything useful done in Scala. I honestly do not care if you right ahead and reinvent it and many do, knowingly or not.

Please listen to Jesper. He has hit it right on the money. Don't take it personally -- there is an awesome learning opportunity lurking in that very short paragraph of his and he is only using Scalaz as the example; forget Scalaz and focus on the message.

On 15 November 2011 22:12, Tony Morris <tonymorris [at] gmail [dot] com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">tonymorris [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:
On 16/11/11 03:10, Jesper Nordenberg wrote:
> This is definitely true. People look at Scalaz code and say it's
> complex, but that's simply because the abstraction level is so much
> higher than anything they've seen in Java and C++. It takes time and
> effort to grasp all the concepts used at these higher abstraction levels.

Ding ding! Please listen to this man.

The problem is the "I" part in "I find it complex." The moment this is
recognised by any Complexity Complainant, give me a buzz and I'll help
you address the issue -- the "I" issue that is, I will help you
understand the subject matter. I can do this. So can you.

Tony Morris

Kevin Wright
mail: kevin [dot] wright [at] scalatechnology [dot] com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">kevin [dot] wright [at] scalatechnology [dot] com
gtalk / msn : kev [dot] lee [dot] wright [at] gmail [dot] com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">kev [dot] lee [dot] wright [at] gmail [dot] com quora: google+:
twitter: @thecoda
vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright steam: kev_lee_wright
"My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra

Tony Morris

Tony Morris

Copyright © 2012 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland