Hacker News Reader

Comment by eklavya | Hacker News Reader

Let me assure you, Scala is the nicest and most productive language I have ever used. Don't just assume that the naysayers are right, try it yourself (and please be fair and give it time) and you WILL love it.

I have seen people who were average Java programmers who were afraid (right to their bones) pick it up even if out of coercion rather than willingness :P and start to like it.

I don't understand why people suggest Java, Scala is better in every imaginable way. Also there maybe more than one ways to do things, but I don't get why that is a problem. Code comes from within a person like art and it's bound to be different. Don't the large projects always have different style? I don't see how sane code albeit written in different styles would become unmaintainable/unreadable.

View on HN

I concur. I started out with all the usual preconceptions about Scala, "But it's too complex!", "The compiler is too slow", etc... (I was very into Clojure at the time, so that colored my vision a bit too)

I then made an honest attempt to learn the language and put it to use and I couldn't be happier with the outcome. It's such a productive language! the type-system is awesome, and really helps navigate from an idea to a solution, the ecosystem is stunning, with very high-quality projects for every use case you can think of. Just look at Spark, Finagle, ScalaZ, the various Typesafe projects...

Please people, don't be put off by the negativity parroted by many detractors. Give Scala a shot, you might be pleasantly surprised and end up with a very powerful tool on your side.

The problem with Scala isn't productivity for a single developer or a small team, or a matter of how much you like it, but how productive it is in large teams. There are big problems of separate teams in the same company writing Scala code that the other teams can't understand, and arguments over style taking over most of the code reviews.

And that cannot be solved with style guides and some kind of linting, like in Javascript?

That's not the kind of style I was referring to, but choosing among the many ways of doing things in Scala.

Compilation time - just to point one measurable advantage of java. Also please remember that code is read much more often than it is written, so having many different ways to do single thing may not sound like a such good idea for people maintaining your code.

I agree that compilation is a lot slower but it's actually not that much for any practical use. In any case recompilations happen a lot more than from scratch compilations, which are fast.

Don't you agree that different styles will be there no matter what in any high level language? You will always find code written by other people to be different. Some comments make it look like the different styles feel like different languages but short of writing Java in Scala you won't find that to be the case.

I will agree that some codebases are slightly more complex but they are libraries and they are complex because they want me to have a nicer, richer API.

Scala is certainly worth studying for a bit (like most languages, I'd say), you should just not plan on being able to use it professionally (like most languages).

I studied Scala with the express intent of working professionally with Scala; then I went looking and found a job writing Scala. Its not an academic language at all.

If LinkedIn is any indication there is absolutely no shortage of open professional Scala positions.

LinkedIn just announced they were stopping to use Scala and focusing on Java 8 instead. Good luck getting a Scala job there :)

Why are you so negative on Scala? Better yet, why are you so unequivocally negative on any programming language?

Like every language, Scala has strengths and weaknesses. It makes sense for some teams and not for others. Why don't we debate how its strengths and weaknesses can best be managed and understood rather than just pointing out one company that decided some aspect of the language didn't make sense for them.

When there's lack of objective direct information, the evidence of adoption or "churn" might be a good substitute: http://www.quora.com/Is-LinkedIn-getting-rid-of-Scala Of course, it's difficult to judge LinkedIn's motives but it certainly raises valid questions and concerns.

There is objective and direct information. Study the language and it's libraries. Then look at your needs and make a judgement based on reason. There is no other way around this. You could look at other companies experience but then you would need a large sample size and detailed analysis of why they succeeded or failed. Using a sample size of one web company you might as well study the entrails of a dog and you will get the same results if you make technical decisions like this.

I actually had _no idea_ LinkedIn used Scala until I read further down this thread. I am referring to, of course, the large number of contact requests I receive from recruiters about open Scala positions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com