[vetler]

I'm a Scala newbie, and it did not take me long to actually understand the type signature here. Of course, when I first saw it I was confused, but it's not magical.

There are probably map-methods elsewhere, but let's take the map defined on TraversableLike[0]. TraversableLike is a base trait for all kinds of Scala collections (let's just pretend trait is like an interface for now, look it up if you're interested in the details).

TraversableLike has two definitions of map in 2.9.1:

  def map [B] (f: (A) ⇒ B): Traversable[B]

  def map [B, That] (f: (A) ⇒ B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That]): That

The first one isn't so bad, is it? The first one takes a function converting objects of A to objects of B, and returns something that is traversable of B (i.e. perhaps a List[B] or Set[B]).

The second one can return anything you want, as long as you have a function that describes how the objects can be converted. That is what the implicit is for. For instance, if you map a collection over a function that returns a list of integers, but you actually wanted a set of strings - you can define a function that converts your List[Int] to Set[String]. I recently found a description of canBuildFrom on Stack Overflow that explains this in a bit more detail[1].

As a Scala beginner I find that I often can't expect to understand everything at once - a lot of times it's like other languages, but when it's not I usually can't just guess what it does, but actually have to take time to learn it. I don't think this is a bad thing.

[0]: http://www.scala-lang.org/api/current/index.html#scala.colle...

[1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1721356/scala-2-8-canbuil...

[bad_user]

     it did not take me long to actually understand 
     the type signature here

Bullshit. You just followed somebody else's public explanation. Not a problem per se, but this doesn't strike me as beginner friendly ... Dr. Brian Beckman also has a great description of monads on Channel9 that doesn't involve category theory. Does that mean that monad comprehensions are also beginner friendly?

     if you map a collection over a function 
     that returns a list of integers, but you 
     actually wanted a set of strings

Here's some Ruby code for you:

     [1,2,3].map{|x| x * 2}.map{|x| x.to_s}.to_set

Ironically I find this code written in a dynamic language to be much more readable. Also, give me first-class functions and recursion in a dynamic language and I can implement all of the above by my own (lists, sets and map).

[vetler]

> Bullshit. You just followed somebody else's public explanation.

If you're referring to the stack overflow answer, then no. I understood the signature by learning Scala (by reading a book). Is that cheating?

> Does that mean that monad comprehensions are also beginner friendly?

No, not necessarily. Do you have to understand what that even means to be able to use Scala?

[soc88]

How about acting less aggressive? It certainly dosen't help you to get your point across.

> Here's some Ruby code for you

You just tried very hard to not understand the problem at hand, right?

Because the equivalent Scala code looks like this:

    Array(1,2,3).map(_*2).map(_.toString).toSet

> I can implement all of the above by my own

Sure, if you OK with your code running magnitudes slower than the built-in stuff.

That's probably the main difference between general purpose languages and scripting languages today: General-purpose languages allow you to implement the appropriate data structures yourself, while scripting languages force you to use the built-in stuff.

[bad_user]

The issue discussed here is the implementation and signature of "map", a trivial function that anybody should be able to understand and implement without a sweat.

     Sure, if you OK with your code running magnitudes 
     slower than the built-in stuff
     ...
     scripting languages force you to use the built-in stuff

These 2 sentences don't compile.

You should also realize that the speed of the JVM has nothing to do with the static-ness of the language. The bytecode is in fact dynamic ... the only instances where certain assumptions where made based on Java (the language) being:

1) classes are immutable and can't be garbage collected unless you destroy the corresponding class loader

2) the method dispatching done cannot be overridden (so when calling a method on an implicit object, you also have to specify the interface where that method is defined) ... but this has nothing to do with the inner-workings of the JVM and is being addressed with the work done on InvokeDynamic

Really, if you're worrying about "scripting" specific behavior sneaking in on you, stealing away precious CPU cycles or RAM bytes, then you should stay away from the JVM.

[soc88]

Seeing that you still don't grok the basics discussed here, this is probably my last answer to you.

You still fail to understand that the `map` (and other methods) are far more flexible in Scala, making them play well with sub-typing and inheritance (and in fact with stuff like `String` and arrays which don't implement any collection methods at all).

With your examlpe above, what result collection type would you get when you map with `Int -> String` over a `BitSet` or with `Char -> Int` over a `String`?

> You should also realize that the speed of the JVM has nothing to do with the static-ness of the language.

You have obviously never seen the mess JRuby and Clojure employ to run on the JVM.

[bad_user]

You have a reading comprehension deficiency.

The example above was made by me, on purpose to explain the difference, which I did.

On the JVM - I've implemented dozens of parsers and simple compilers, I did a lot of bytecode manipulation. I know my bytecodes, I know very well the challenges involved.

Your oppinion is based on gospel and the authors of Clojure or JRuby dissagree with you ;)