Scala: Where Ingenuity Lies

Love(d) It!


From my two years of “making money” with Scala, I went from loving an every bit of it to disliking majority of it. Not all of it though, since I still feel that “guilty pleasure” when I get to do Scala: it is a more concise Java, all the stream APIs built in, e.g. map/filter/groupBy/reduce/.. (Java 8 calls them Streams), pattern matching, nice way to construct things, “suggested” immutability, etc..

AKKA and Visual Basic


I am lucky I learned to be dangerous in Erlang before I picked up Scala. Hence as I was going deeper and deeper into AKKA, I could not help but notice how AKKA is missing the point of Erlang simplicity. It was 1.2, and of course 2.X fixed a lot of it, but again, it still has this feeling of leaking “unnecessary cleverness”.

And of course Erlang process isolation is what makes it the platform for distributed systems, where AKKA’s biggest limitation is, well.. JVM really. It had become apparent to me that, while I still liked Scala, whenever I need to create/work with distributed systems, Erlang is a lot simpler and does a much better job. With enough time put into Visual Basic, it can also “embrace” OTP, but .. why?

Ain’t Exactly Hammock Driven


Doing Scala I constantly lived in the world of the category theory. Not that it is necessary to know it to write decent Scala code, but anywhere you go, everybody “talks” it. It was ok, but felt somewhat like an unnecessary mental overload. Not the category theory itself (it was very nice), but the burden of constantly staying on your monad toes.

It’s About Time: Scala State Succeeded by Clojure


Finally, learning and appreciating Clojure, made it quite obvious that Scala is just.. overcooked. At that point it seemed to be an ML’s ugly step sister. Something that I could do in 10 lines of Clojure, I could also do in 15 lines of Scala (more often than not), but what an ugly, and not at all intuitive, 15 lines that was in comparison.

Clojure also taught me that it is a lot easier to reason about time when the whole codebase is just a series of state successions: (f””’… (f” (f’ (f 42)))), which makes a “time increment” be just a single increment from (f) to (f’). This, by the way, is also the reason why the resulting codebase in Clojure is tiny compared to Scala. Not because it is dynamically typed, but because Clojure is opinionated as a language (immutability, composition, state succession, …), and Scala is opinionated as a community, while the language lags behind.

It is Not Because Of Type


Typed Clojure is great and makes Clojure optionally typed.

Interesting thing though.. I have had problems with “would have better checked it at compile time” in Groovy, but rarely, if ever, in Clojure.

I suspect the reason behind this is immutability and just plain simple seq API (a.k.a. collections): [], (), {}, #{}, where everything has pretty much the same semantics.

Scala however, is a soup of mutable and immutable collections, with another soup of functions (which are explicitly objects => may also carry state) and “stateful” classes. Hence when you program in Scala, it is imperative to have a strong type system, otherwise there is no way to know whether A is contravariant to B and covariant to C and the method M can take it. In Clojure it is mostly a function that takes a seq or a map => not much to sweat about.

Where Ingenuity Lies


Simplicity and elegancy take a lot of work and dedication. It is a lot easier to write yet another ML, but make it several times more complex. It is hard however to absorb and channel all that complexity through a very simple set of APIs with minimal syntax, as Rich did with Clojure.