mcv on Scala, Part II

Yeah, parts of Scala have always struck me as the most beautiful language ever, but if you dig a bit deeper, it turns into one of the most horrifying languages ever. I think the future of the JVM looks more like Kotlin than like Scale or Groovy.

rgoulter 7y

There's a lot of stuff which is fine about Scala, but I still like this presentation: https://nurkiewicz.github.io/talks/2014/scalar/#/

In particular, this slide is my favourite: https://nurkiewicz.github.io/talks/2014/scalar/#/22

  // One of these doesn't compile
  seq foreach println
  seq.foreach{println}
  seq.foreach(println)
  seq.foreach{println(_)}
  seq.foreach(println(_))
  seq.foreach(x => println(x))
  seq.foreach(x: Int => println(x))
  seq foreach{x: Int => println(x)}
  seq.foreach{x: Int => println(x)}
  seq foreach{case x => println(x)}
  seq.foreach{case x => println(x)}
  seq foreach{case x: Int => println(x)}
  seq.foreach{case x: Int => println(x)}

mcv 7y

Only one? If there's any justice in the world, it's the only one without any brackets. I fear it's one of the many without a dot, though.

rgoulter 7y

This all depends which syntactic conventions you're used to.

"a + b" is more readable than "a.+(b)", and so that's what scala allows. I think it's a neat way of allowing operator overloading.

"iterable.foreach { ... }" is also readable for a callback.

FWIW, the one which doesn't compile is (apparently) "seq.foreach(x: Int => println(x))". https://scastie.scala-lang.org/krtG0VwgTmCNwIxATYFAbg

zmmmmm 7y

I think the future of the JVM looks more like Kotlin than like Scale or Groovy.

Seems like an odd thing to say because Kotlin looks so much like Groovy. I'm curious what you are thinking of that distinguishes it in terms of direction?

Comments