This page is no longer maintained — Please continue to the home page at www.scala-lang.org

scala-user and scala-debate

15 replies
Antonio Cunei
Joined: 2008-12-16,
User offline. Last seen 3 years 22 weeks ago.

Hello everyone,

I noticed (and it was difficult not to notice) the 140+ post thread that
appeared within half a day on scala-user. I was very happy to see that the
discussion was insightful and civil, but it still was, I am afraid,
somewhat off-topic and definitely too long for scala-user. Especially after
the first one hundred posts.

If you can have fine discussions about functional purity and the meaning of
reality, no doubt you are also sophisticated enough to master the
distinction between scala-user (for people writing code and needing help,
especially beginners) and scala-debate (for specialized and in-depth
discussions). Out of respect to all the other subscribers to the list,
please do move long discussions of this kind to scala-debate in the future.

In any event, I see that there is a lack of a proper venue for discussions
about the most properly functional/theoretical aspects of Scala. Would you
people be in favor or against the creation of a "scala-functional" list,
for discussions about these aspects? These are important topics, especially
in Scala, yet discussions like this one may come as a chock to newcomers,
and may cause the (wrong) impression that Scala is exclusively for academics.

A suitable discussion venue might be a good way to allow these higher-level
discussions to evolve without concerns of being reprimanded, and also be a
source of good ideas to be incorporated in the language at a later stage.

Please let me know your opinion (by following this thread on scala-debate,
and not on scala-user). If there is a consensus that such a list would be a
good idea, I will create one.

Thanks!
Toni

anli
Joined: 2008-08-19,
User offline. Last seen 1 day 49 min ago.
Re: scala-user and scala-debate

On Friday 13 November 2009 12:50:29 Antonio Cunei wrote:
> Please let me know your opinion (by following this thread on scala-debate,
> and not on scala-user). If there is a consensus that such a list would be a
> good idea, I will create one.
>
> Thanks!
> Toni

It would be great to have such "functioning" list :-), but the main problem -
as at decribed case with long thread - is our discipline.

Month or two ago there was some also, hm, vague long thread, I have suggested
to move it to debate, but nobody noticed the suggestion, being in fire of
discussion :-)

I see, additional strong moderation can help, but a moderator must have good
scalaland feeling and time, and such nice person is also necessary in another
also important - as community is - places.

So, from outside EPFL perspective, it would be nice. OTOH, the team need to
predict additional bothers :-)

Andrew

loverdos
Joined: 2008-11-18,
User offline. Last seen 2 years 27 weeks ago.
Re: scala-user and scala-debate

Hi Tony

> In any event, I see that there is a lack of a proper venue for discussions
> about the most properly functional/theoretical aspects of Scala. Would you
> people be in favor or against the creation of a "scala-functional" list, for
> discussions about these aspects? These are important topics, especially in
> Scala, yet discussions like this one may come as a chock to newcomers, and
> may cause the (wrong) impression that Scala is exclusively for academics.

I have proposed in the past a scala-research list.

This can host the more theoretical concerns, ideas, papers that we
discover and may seem interesting, crazy or ground-breaking scala
implementation for known design problems etc [the list can go on...].

Christos

Tony Morris 2
Joined: 2009-03-20,
User offline. Last seen 42 years 45 weeks ago.
Re: scala-user and scala-debate

The discussion was about type systems and alluded to free theorems and
curry-howard in an effort to make a point about documenting code (which
fortunately, got some people thinking), so I'm not sure what
"functional" has to do with it, except for the fact that the discussion
took a wild diversion where many misunderstandings were made apparent.

I've no problems with the size of threads, so I offer no other comment.

Antonio Cunei wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I noticed (and it was difficult not to notice) the 140+ post thread
> that appeared within half a day on scala-user. I was very happy to see
> that the discussion was insightful and civil, but it still was, I am
> afraid, somewhat off-topic and definitely too long for scala-user.
> Especially after the first one hundred posts.
>
> If you can have fine discussions about functional purity and the
> meaning of reality, no doubt you are also sophisticated enough to
> master the distinction between scala-user (for people writing code and
> needing help, especially beginners) and scala-debate (for specialized
> and in-depth discussions). Out of respect to all the other subscribers
> to the list, please do move long discussions of this kind to
> scala-debate in the future.
>
> In any event, I see that there is a lack of a proper venue for
> discussions about the most properly functional/theoretical aspects of
> Scala. Would you people be in favor or against the creation of a
> "scala-functional" list, for discussions about these aspects? These
> are important topics, especially in Scala, yet discussions like this
> one may come as a chock to newcomers, and may cause the (wrong)
> impression that Scala is exclusively for academics.
>
> A suitable discussion venue might be a good way to allow these
> higher-level discussions to evolve without concerns of being
> reprimanded, and also be a source of good ideas to be incorporated in
> the language at a later stage.
>
> Please let me know your opinion (by following this thread on
> scala-debate, and not on scala-user). If there is a consensus that
> such a list would be a good idea, I will create one.
>
> Thanks!
> Toni
>

Tony Morris 2
Joined: 2009-03-20,
User offline. Last seen 42 years 45 weeks ago.
Re: scala-user and scala-debate

The discussion was about type systems and alluded to free theorems and
curry-howard in an effort to make a point about documenting code (which
fortunately, got some people thinking), so I'm not sure what
"functional" has to do with it, except for the fact that the discussion
took a wild diversion where many misunderstandings were made apparent.

I've no problems with the size of threads, so I offer no other comment.

Antonio Cunei wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I noticed (and it was difficult not to notice) the 140+ post thread
> that appeared within half a day on scala-user. I was very happy to see
> that the discussion was insightful and civil, but it still was, I am
> afraid, somewhat off-topic and definitely too long for scala-user.
> Especially after the first one hundred posts.
>
> If you can have fine discussions about functional purity and the
> meaning of reality, no doubt you are also sophisticated enough to
> master the distinction between scala-user (for people writing code and
> needing help, especially beginners) and scala-debate (for specialized
> and in-depth discussions). Out of respect to all the other subscribers
> to the list, please do move long discussions of this kind to
> scala-debate in the future.
>
> In any event, I see that there is a lack of a proper venue for
> discussions about the most properly functional/theoretical aspects of
> Scala. Would you people be in favor or against the creation of a
> "scala-functional" list, for discussions about these aspects? These
> are important topics, especially in Scala, yet discussions like this
> one may come as a chock to newcomers, and may cause the (wrong)
> impression that Scala is exclusively for academics.
>
> A suitable discussion venue might be a good way to allow these
> higher-level discussions to evolve without concerns of being
> reprimanded, and also be a source of good ideas to be incorporated in
> the language at a later stage.
>
> Please let me know your opinion (by following this thread on
> scala-debate, and not on scala-user). If there is a consensus that
> such a list would be a good idea, I will create one.
>
> Thanks!
> Toni
>

Michal Politowski 2
Joined: 2009-09-15,
User offline. Last seen 42 years 45 weeks ago.
Re: scala-user and scala-debate

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:50:29 +0100, Antonio Cunei wrote:
[...]
> In any event, I see that there is a lack of a proper venue for
> discussions about the most properly functional/theoretical aspects
> of Scala. Would you people be in favor or against the creation of a
> "scala-functional" list, for discussions about these aspects? These
> are important topics, especially in Scala, yet discussions like this
> one may come as a chock to newcomers, and may cause the (wrong)
> impression that Scala is exclusively for academics.

From this observer's point of view there seems to be no reason
why such discussions would need a separate list
as long as scala-debate is not too busy.

Tony Morris 2
Joined: 2009-03-20,
User offline. Last seen 42 years 45 weeks ago.
Re: scala-user and scala-debate

Hello Christos,
Without intending to be provocative, but letting honesty prevail, I
think this would create the never-ceasing dichotomy that there is
"research" and "not-research" very common among the anti-intellectual
movement.

My ultimate objective is to invoke thought and I'm glad to hear that was
achieved for some, unfortunately at the expense of "the anti-thesis of
thought" for others, which was never intended. Indeed, such a
discussion, once certain basic facts are accepted or learned by whatever
means, can be quite fruitful (and I hope those that have started down
that path find those fruits!). I've had them before in the past, both on
the internet and IRL.

If anything, the discussion could have moved to scala-debate, only to
move the laborious and repetitive noise to a list where it is expected
more, but not because there was a legitimate debate.

I hope not to have fueled any fires, sorry.

Christos KK Loverdos wrote:
> Hi Tony
>
>
>> In any event, I see that there is a lack of a proper venue for discussions
>> about the most properly functional/theoretical aspects of Scala. Would you
>> people be in favor or against the creation of a "scala-functional" list, for
>> discussions about these aspects? These are important topics, especially in
>> Scala, yet discussions like this one may come as a chock to newcomers, and
>> may cause the (wrong) impression that Scala is exclusively for academics.
>>
>
> I have proposed in the past a scala-research list.
>
> This can host the more theoretical concerns, ideas, papers that we
> discover and may seem interesting, crazy or ground-breaking scala
> implementation for known design problems etc [the list can go on...].
>
> Christos
>

Alefas
Joined: 2009-06-23,
User offline. Last seen 33 weeks 5 days ago.
Type in _* syntax

I'm interested about what type we expect for s in this case:

 

val s: ? = Nothing

def foo(x: Int*) = 23

foo(s: _*)

 

As I saw compiler error message, it's expect scala.collection.Seq[Int] (in Scala 2.8, for Scala 2.7 I saw in spec that it's scala.Seq). But Array[Int] is ok, so what more exact description for Type of s.

 

Best regards,

Alexander Podkhalyuzin.

Kevin Wright
Joined: 2009-06-09,
User offline. Last seen 49 weeks 3 days ago.
Re: scala-user and scala-debate

Maybe scala-theory would be more appropriate than scala-functional.
That would give us a good place to discuss any underlying principles
behind the language design, not just the functional aspects.

It would also make some sense to open up scala-internals a bit more
and formally allow discussion about compiler plugins there. I always
feel that any plugin-related questions I post on scala or scala-users
are just going to be pure static for the vast majority of subscribers.

On a related note, could we also merge scala and scala-users? they
seem a bit redundant to me...
Alternatively, rename them to better reflect the intent, giving us
scala and scala-advanced or something similar

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Tony Morris wrote:
> Hello Christos,
> Without intending to be provocative, but letting honesty prevail, I
> think this would create the never-ceasing dichotomy that there is
> "research" and "not-research" very common among the anti-intellectual
> movement.
>
> My ultimate objective is to invoke thought and I'm glad to hear that was
> achieved for some, unfortunately at the expense of "the anti-thesis of
> thought" for others, which was never intended. Indeed, such a
> discussion, once certain basic facts are accepted or learned by whatever
> means, can be quite fruitful (and I hope those that have started down
> that path find those fruits!). I've had them before in the past, both on
> the internet and IRL.
>
> If anything, the discussion could have moved to scala-debate, only to
> move the laborious and repetitive noise to a list where it is expected
> more, but not because there was a legitimate debate.
>
> I hope not to have fueled any fires, sorry.
>
>
> Christos KK Loverdos wrote:
>> Hi Tony
>>
>>
>>> In any event, I see that there is a lack of a proper venue for discussions
>>> about the most properly functional/theoretical aspects of Scala. Would you
>>> people be in favor or against the creation of a "scala-functional" list, for
>>> discussions about these aspects? These are important topics, especially in
>>> Scala, yet discussions like this one may come as a chock to newcomers, and
>>> may cause the (wrong) impression that Scala is exclusively for academics.
>>>
>>
>> I have proposed in the past a scala-research list.
>>
>> This can host the more theoretical concerns, ideas, papers that we
>> discover and may seem interesting, crazy or ground-breaking scala
>> implementation for known design problems etc [the list can go on...].
>>
>> Christos
>>
>
> --
> Tony Morris
> http://tmorris.net/
>
>
>

Viktor Klang
Joined: 2008-12-17,
User offline. Last seen 1 year 27 weeks ago.
Re: Type in _* syntax
scala> val s : ? = Nothing
<console>:4: error: not found: type ?
       val s : ? = Nothing
               ^
<console>:4: error: not found: value Nothing
       val s : ? = Nothing


On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Alexander <Alexander [dot] Podkhalyuzin [at] jetbrains [dot] com> wrote:

I'm interested about what type we expect for s in this case:

 

val s: ? = Nothing

def foo(x: Int*) = 23

foo(s: _*)

 

As I saw compiler error message, it's expect scala.collection.Seq[Int] (in Scala 2.8, for Scala 2.7 I saw in spec that it's scala.Seq). But Array[Int] is ok, so what more exact description for Type of s.

 

Best regards,

Alexander Podkhalyuzin.




--
Viktor Klang
| "A complex system that works is invariably
| found to have evolved from a simple system
| that worked." - John Gall

Blog: klangism.blogspot.com
Twttr: twitter.com/viktorklang
Code: github.com/viktorklang
Florian Hars 2
Joined: 2009-11-01,
User offline. Last seen 42 years 45 weeks ago.
Re: scala-user and scala-debate

Antonio Cunei schrieb:
> Would you people be in favor or against the creation of a
> "scala-functional" list, for discussions about these aspects?

The real problem is that we already have too many lists to choose from,
but then this is nothing that sieve can't fix:

if header :regex ["Mailing-List"] "scala.*@listes\.epfl\.ch" {
fileinto "Lists.scala";
}

so I am fairly neutral about this one as long as you don't break my
regexp.

- Florian

Johannes Rudolph
Joined: 2008-12-17,
User offline. Last seen 29 weeks 20 hours ago.
Re: Type in _* syntax

> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Alexander
> wrote:
>> val s: ? = Nothing
>>
>> def foo(x: Int*) = 23
>>
>> foo(s: _*)

IMO the question was, for which values of which type ":_*" is allowed.
If the error message really says so, it probably is Seq[X]. Array[X]
is a subclass of (or implements) Seq[X] so this is no contradiction.

loverdos
Joined: 2008-11-18,
User offline. Last seen 2 years 27 weeks ago.
Re: scala-user and scala-debate

Hi Tony, Toni, et al

[A clarification and correction: My email was an answer to Antonio,
whom I wrote as "Tony" instead of "Toni"]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:28, Tony Morris wrote:
> Hello Christos,
> Without intending to be provocative, but letting honesty prevail, I
> think this would create the never-ceasing dichotomy that there is
> "research" and "not-research" very common among the anti-intellectual
> movement.
>

I see the point. This could apply, for instance, to debate (and
"non-debate"). The distinction is blurred sometimes. In the same
lines, what are the "borders" of scala-user? Are there any very
specific requirements for newcomers that deserve either the creation
of a new list (for them) or the (self-)moderation of our posts to
scala-user? And then, when is something a debate? I can just see an
endless series of questions and it may be impractical just to deal
with them. I just do not know. I am not taking sides either, on this
one.

> My ultimate objective is to invoke thought

I like that as an attitude and practice. I am at the same side too,
generally speaking.

Christos

Gabriel Claramunt 2
Joined: 2009-07-21,
User offline. Last seen 1 year 14 weeks ago.
Re: scala-user and scala-debate

What about "scala-advanced"?
Then it would not be restricted to functional programming or only
research/theory, it will be a clear indication that there's stuff that
newcomers may not understand and motivates to learn more (who doesn't
want to be "advanced"?)
On the other hand, is one more scala list to keep track...

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Christos KK Loverdos
wrote:
> Hi Tony, Toni, et al
>
> [A clarification and correction: My email was an answer to Antonio,
> whom I wrote as "Tony" instead of "Toni"]
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:28, Tony Morris wrote:
>> Hello Christos,
>> Without intending to be provocative, but letting honesty prevail, I
>> think this would create the never-ceasing dichotomy that there is
>> "research" and "not-research" very common among the anti-intellectual
>> movement.
>>
>
> I see the point. This could apply, for instance, to debate (and
> "non-debate"). The distinction is blurred sometimes. In the same
> lines, what are the "borders" of scala-user? Are there any very
> specific requirements for newcomers that deserve either the creation
> of a new list (for them) or the (self-)moderation of our posts to
> scala-user? And then, when is something a debate? I can just see an
> endless series of questions and it may be impractical just to deal
> with them. I just do not know. I am not taking sides either, on this
> one.
>
>> My ultimate objective is to invoke thought
>
> I like that as an attitude and practice. I am at the same side too,
> generally speaking.
>
> Christos
>
> --
>  __~O
>  -\ <,       Christos KK Loverdos
> (*)/ (*)      http://ckkloverdos.com
>

Kevin Wright
Joined: 2009-06-09,
User offline. Last seen 49 weeks 3 days ago.
Re: scala-user and scala-debate

I'm not sure I agree with this, there is definitely a very different
character to discussions about functions and pure type theory as
opposed to discussions concerning e.g. memory leaks in the actor
implementation or usage scenarios for the I/O library

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Gabriel Claramunt
wrote:
> What about "scala-advanced"?
> Then it would not be restricted to functional programming or only
> research/theory, it will be a clear indication that there's stuff that
> newcomers may not understand and motivates to learn more (who doesn't
> want to be "advanced"?)
> On the other hand, is one more scala list to keep track...
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Christos KK Loverdos
> wrote:
>> Hi Tony, Toni, et al
>>
>> [A clarification and correction: My email was an answer to Antonio,
>> whom I wrote as "Tony" instead of "Toni"]
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:28, Tony Morris wrote:
>>> Hello Christos,
>>> Without intending to be provocative, but letting honesty prevail, I
>>> think this would create the never-ceasing dichotomy that there is
>>> "research" and "not-research" very common among the anti-intellectual
>>> movement.
>>>
>>
>> I see the point. This could apply, for instance, to debate (and
>> "non-debate"). The distinction is blurred sometimes. In the same
>> lines, what are the "borders" of scala-user? Are there any very
>> specific requirements for newcomers that deserve either the creation
>> of a new list (for them) or the (self-)moderation of our posts to
>> scala-user? And then, when is something a debate? I can just see an
>> endless series of questions and it may be impractical just to deal
>> with them. I just do not know. I am not taking sides either, on this
>> one.
>>
>>> My ultimate objective is to invoke thought
>>
>> I like that as an attitude and practice. I am at the same side too,
>> generally speaking.
>>
>> Christos
>>
>> --
>>  __~O
>>  -\ <,       Christos KK Loverdos
>> (*)/ (*)      http://ckkloverdos.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gabriel Claramunt
> Twitter: @gclaramunt
> Blog: http://gabrielsw.blogspot.com
>

Erik Engbrecht
Joined: 2008-12-19,
User offline. Last seen 3 years 18 weeks ago.
Re: scala-user and scala-debate
I think Scala has enough mailing lists as it is.  Perhaps just adjusting their definitions a little and posting those definitions people will know which one to use.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Antonio Cunei <antonio [dot] cunei [at] epfl [dot] ch> wrote:
Hello everyone,

I noticed (and it was difficult not to notice) the 140+ post thread that appeared within half a day on scala-user. I was very happy to see that the discussion was insightful and civil, but it still was, I am afraid, somewhat off-topic and definitely too long for scala-user. Especially after the first one hundred posts.

If you can have fine discussions about functional purity and the meaning of reality, no doubt you are also sophisticated enough to master the distinction between scala-user (for people writing code and needing help, especially beginners) and scala-debate (for specialized and in-depth discussions). Out of respect to all the other subscribers to the list, please do move long discussions of this kind to scala-debate in the future.

In any event, I see that there is a lack of a proper venue for discussions about the most properly functional/theoretical aspects of Scala. Would you people be in favor or against the creation of a "scala-functional" list, for discussions about these aspects? These are important topics, especially in Scala, yet discussions like this one may come as a chock to newcomers, and may cause the (wrong) impression that Scala is exclusively for academics.

A suitable discussion venue might be a good way to allow these higher-level discussions to evolve without concerns of being reprimanded, and also be a source of good ideas to be incorporated in the language at a later stage.

Please let me know your opinion (by following this thread on scala-debate, and not on scala-user). If there is a consensus that such a list would be a good idea, I will create one.

Thanks!
Toni



--
http://erikengbrecht.blogspot.com/

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