This language seems to have so much potential, but why did it never take off? I remember hearing that LinkedIn was using it heavily and dropped it in favor of Java
Why did it fail?
This language seems to have so much potential, but why did it never take off? I remember hearing that LinkedIn was using it heavily and dropped it in favor of Java
Oracle threatened to sue all the companies using it.
Scala 3 reminded people of the mess that was python 3 so everyone noped out
Too complex. Incoherent design.
It's certainly got a core of useful & powerful language features in there, unfortunately, unless you're working with a small team of experts, some smoothbrain is going to come along and frick everything up by doing some of the insane shit the language allows you to do because he really wants to learn category theory instead of adhering to the style guidelines the team has established (heh, as if anyone actually takes the time to establish the appropriate guard rails necessary to ensure a successful Scala project...) It's kind of like lisp, C++, or Perl in this regard. Powerful language, the complexity will kill you.
To add to the points in (which I agree with): the tooling was, and remains, very poor. Compile times were (and still are) atrocious. sbt is a disaster. There are a lot of crappy libraries around that people are stuck with (e.g., Slick springs to mind). Also, most of the good ideas in were cannibalised in some form by Java proper, so it has less of a reason to exist.
Working with Scala convinced me that languages should generally err towards making it hard for dumb fricks to make horrible, incomprehensible messes.
>that languages should generally err towards making it hard for dumb fricks to make horrible, incomprehensible messes.
Having worked on big projects with mostly outsourced teams, this is the way.
For my personal shit, C or even x86 asm is fine to work with because I'm the only one coding on it. As soon as 4 people are working on the same project, there needs to be guardrails and ideally, only one idiom that does a given action. Any flexibility becomes a liability with people doing whatever the frick they found on stackoverflow, with no understanding of side effects.
>because he really wants to learn category theory instead of adhering to the style guidelines
"Insane" as in obscure Perl spaghetti or "insane" as in things most FP weenies are comfortable with, but not other devs?
Developers couldn't triforce. You can quote me on that
*
* *
Scala is too flexible. You can have 3 different people solve the same problem in Scala and the solutions might look so different that you would think is 3 different languages.
Haskell autism kidnapping community, implicit and macros were a disaster for coding, constant breaking changes, Slow or memory intensive by pure functional Data Structures, slow compiler, SBT and bad tooling.
Now Scala 3 looks nice but latest Java and Kotlin are more practical.
>why did it fail
It never failed, moron. It's still being used in almost every big enterprise for big data shit.
Yes, I am unfortunately stuck with a huge Scala codebase.
All the "Big Enterprises" TM using for "Big Data" TM, are writing the same small pattern of code, that goes approximately like:
>read data from s3 (or google's version of it)
>.select()
>.where
>.withColumn()
>.write()
You don't fricking need to have a language like Scala to be able to write this kind of logic
If it weren't for Apache Spark, this language would have died years ago.
This thread cracks me up. I know for a fact max 2 people in this thread have ever actually worked beyond a hello world project in Scala and yet they talk about it as if they knew shit. Sometimes I accumulate so much rage inside of me because of morons on this board. I keep asking myself, what is the solution? Mass genocide?
Unironically touch grass, lad. Your reaction is out of proportion.
>Your reaction is out of proportion.
Is it not because it translates to real life as well.
>I keep asking myself, what is the solution? Mass genocide?
Instead of killing everyone you could just have a nice day. Seems easier.
>"just get vaxxed!"
it has a stupid name
>Why did it fail?
https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/search?search=scala&sort=relevance&location=united-states-USA
https://careers.twitter.com/en/roles.html#q=scala
https://jobs.netflix.com/search?q=scala
https://www.amazon.jobs/en/search?base_query=scala&loc_query=
https://www.metacareers.com/jobs/539562464294209/
https://paypal.eightfold.ai/careers?query=scala&location=&Country=&Job%20Category=
https://adobe.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/external_experienced?q=scala
https://jobs.ebayinc.com/search-jobs?k=scala
https://www.uber.com/us/en/careers/list/?query=scala
https://www.yahooinc.com/careers/search.html
https://careers.bloomberg.com/job/search?qf=scala
Tooling is bad, is way too expressive so you've to put extra effort on following code guidelines or nobody would understand each other's code, you've to drop to Java to use most librarie out there anyways and Clojure and Kotlin do that a bit better. Hell even Groovy could've took it off, as is fully backwards compatible with Java, but everyone abandoned it and did a half baked effort with it on Jenkins and Gradle so ended losing momentum and gaining hate. There're things that are quite janky honestly, like GStrings.
>Tooling is bad
?
See
Explain to me how sbt is a disaster. Also you don't even have to use sbt. You can use Mill or Gradle as well. I feel like people are just parroting shit they hear somwhere else. Sbt is actually a great build tool once you learn it.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLOJURE
I'll answer later, it's compiling
>a language with macro programming and features like implicits needs longer for compilation
wow, much surprise moron
Rust has all that and doesn't take a fraction of that time for compilation
Rust has no implicits
Gtfo you troony shill
Made obsolete by Rust.
Rust looks as Low level Scala, Scala Native fail.