|
|
|
|
|
|
by jcadam
3434 days ago
|
|
|
> The way you describe your experience with Scala makes me think you only had a very superficial look at it. I worked with it daily for 2 years and also took Odersky's Coursera courses on Scala. I liked it more than Java (7), though I find the syntax aesthetically offensive (and I realize that's subjective). Ada (I worked in an Ada shop for 3 years before moving to the JVM) managed to have a robust type system without introducing the sort of syntax wtf-ness that Scala seems to need. I actually recommended against using Scala at a later job simply because I thought the learning curve would be beyond most of the people I was working with (I didn't phrase it quite like that when mgmt asked me for my opinion, of course). Learning to write idiomatic Scala takes time. In that regard it's an expensive language to use unless you hire folks who already have experience with it. As far as Clojure's dynamic typing goes, you can use libraries like plumatic/schema to add some checking where you need it (interfaces, etc), and for whatever reason I tend to have less trouble (as far as runtime type issues go) with Clojure than I do with Python or Ruby. But hey, no language is perfect. I kind of wish Haskell clicked for me the way LISP seems to, since on paper it seems to check all the boxes -- but I just can't seem to get very proficient with it (or I'm just not willing to invest the time at this point). |
|
|
Well that's indeed your opinion, whenever I write code in a language with old fashioned statements I die a little inside. I have a lot of experience with ADA too, at it's core it's still a procedural language prohibiting good abstractions, it's very safe but also extremely verbose.
I learned Scala after I learned Haskell, ~7 years ago, maybe that's why I had a different experience. Since I learned haskell I think in types & transformations, it has made me a much better programmer. Clojure has sortof the same mindset, but I would call it 'shapes & transformations'.