[jadenPete]

I couldn’t disagree more. Most of my company’s backend code is written in Scala, and most of our engineers dislike it because the language is difficult to understand, has way too many features, and has many ways to solve the same problem. I don’t want Rust to continue down this path, and I already worry with some of the syntactic sugar and type system additions being discussed that it already has.

A language’s type system doesn’t need to model every possible type of guarantee. It just needs to provide a type safe way to do 95% of things and force its users to conform to use the constructs it provides. Otherwise it becomes a buggy hodge podge of features that interact in poor and unpredictable ways. This is already the case in Scala; we’ve discovered almost 20 bugs in the compiler in the past year.

[theknarf]

> A language’s type system doesn’t need to model every possible type of guarantee

Actually this is the exact point of a type system. Why would you want to write unit tests for stuff the compiler can guarantee for you at the type system level?

[satvikpendem]

There is a middle ground. People seem to use Haskell and OCaml just fine and both are as expressive, so maybe it is just Scala having shoved in too many things. Based on what the article shows, it doesn't seem like they're making ten different ways to do the same thing but rather one way to (optionally) get more type safety out. I doubt everyone will be writing dependent type contracts for every single function, it's more for certain pieces of the codebase.

[MrBuddyCasino]

Ah yes Haskell, the reasonable centrist position in language design.

[satvikpendem]

Compared to the other languages listed in this thread, it definitely is, and it has production systems unlike them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47259148

[MrBuddyCasino]

You got a point there.

[pjmlp]

Ever heard of Apple, Facebook, Jane Street, HP?

[timcobb]

I think they were saying haskell is a production language

[pjmlp]

They were downplaying the other examples.