Another Word For It

New Features in Scala 2.10

From the post:

Today was most awaited (by me) talk of Devoxx. Martin Odersky gave presentation and announced a new features in the Scala 2.10. I just want to quickly go through all of them:

1. New reflection framework – it looks very nice (see photo) and 100% Scala. No need for Java for reflection API in order to work with Scala classes anymore!
2. Reification – it would be limited
3. type Dynamic – something similar to .NET 3
4. IDE improvements
5. Faster builds
6. SIPs: string interpolation and simpler implicits

At the moment it’s not clear whether mentioned SIPs would be really included in the release, but the chances are pretty high! So yes, we will finally get string interpolation!

Important for two reasons:

First, news about the upcoming features of Scala.

Second, we learn there is another expansion for SIPs. (I really didn’t plan it that way but it was nice how it worked out.)

Scalex

From the webpage:

Scaladoc Index

Much like Hoogle for Haskell, Scalex lets you find Scala functions quickly.

• map Search for the text “map”
• list map Search for the text “list” and the text “map”
• A => A Search for the type “A => A”
• : A => A Search for the type “A => A”
• a Search for the text “a”
• map : List[A] => (A => B) => List[B]
  Search for the text “map” and the type “List[A] => (A => B) => List[B]“

Searches can be either textual (a list of words), or by type (a type signature) or both. A type search may optionally start with a : symbol. A search is considered a text search unless it contains a combination of text and symbols, or if it starts with :. To search for both a type and a name, place a : between them, for example size : List[A] => Int

It occurs to me that a topic map version of such a resource could have “occurrences” of functions drawn from a code base that exist in associations with known programs and programmers. As an added resource to see how things are done with a particular function by experts.

Without documentation of the surrounding code that might be less useful than one would otherwise think but all good code is documented, isn’t it?

Yes, Virginia, Scala is Learnable

Paul Snively writes:

We’re using Databinder Dispatch a lot in the Cloud Services Engineering group at VMware, and late last week I was discussing it with one of my colleagues, a very senior (not average!) Java developer. I showed him a snippet of Dispatch code and said I wouldn’t expect anyone to understand it on first reading. He seemed surprised by that, unfortunately in the sense that he seemed to believe that it was expected that team members understand Dispatch code on first reading. Then Dave Pollak’s excellent Yes, Virginia, Scala is Hard post appeared, calling me out by name. While it’s extremely flattering that Dave thinks I’m a statistical outlier with respect to programming language expertise, his comment, along with my disappointment to find that a very capable colleague apparently felt pressure to understand something that I expect no one to understand immediately, impels me to try to address the question of Scala’s complexity.

He concludes:

My one-sentence summary, though, would be: there’s no substitute for actually learning the language, and yes, Virginia, Scala is learnable.

Perhaps a bit unfair but I am reminded of efforts to make metadata more “accessible” to people, innocent of any formal information/library training, who built data sets used by millions daily. Interesting I suppose but then I recall when Alta Vista was “the” search site. How many users could today even correctly identify the name? There will always be far more users looking for simple facts, surmise and rumor than those interested in more sophisticated analysis.

My counsel is to learn both the more sophisticated and perhaps even historical systems. You can always dumb delivery down.

Scala School!

From the webpage:

About

Scala school was started as a series of lectures at Twitter to prepare experienced engineers to be productive Scala programmers. Being a relatively new language, but also one that draws on many familiar concepts, we found this an effective way of getting new engineers up to speed quickly. This is the written material that accompanied those lectures. We have found that these are useful in their own right.

Approach

We think it makes the most sense to approach teaching Scala not as if it’s an improved Java but as a new language. Experience in Java is not expected. Focus will be around the interpreter and the object-functional style as well as the style of programming we do here. An emphasis will be placed on maintainability, clarity of expression, and leveraging the type system.

Most of the lessons require no software other than a Scala REPL. The reader is encouraged to follow along, and go further! Use these lessons as a starting point to explore the language.

Excellent!

High Wizardry in the Land of Scala by Daniel Spiewak.

Daniel is obviously not a decaf fan.

Covers some advanced features of Scala:

• Higher-Kinds
• Type Classes
• Type-Level Encoding
• Continuations

He mentions a series of posts at Apocalisp, which starts with: Type-Level Programming in Scala, which has a listing of the following post, sort of. The list is incomplete and not really consistent with all the following articles. A complete listing would be handy. To save the author time I may contribute one.

I am wondering if type encoding of data structures would be useful with complex subject identifiers?

BTW, is Ruby a better language for conferences? Daniel mentions that at Ruby conferences they have porn in their slides. All that you find here is a nasty looking math slide. Would Benjamin be the right person to ask?

Scala for the Intrigued & Scala Traits

The current issue of PragPub (Sept-2011) has a pair of articles on Scala.

“Scala for the Intrigued” by Venkat Subramaniam starts a new series on Scala. Conciseness is the emphasis of the first post, with the implication that conciseness is a virtue. Perhaps, perhaps. I prefer to think of “conciseness” as the proper use of macros for substitution. Still, it looks like an interesting series to follow.

Brian Tarbox in “Scala Traits” counters an “antipattern” in Java with a “pattern” in Scala using “traits.” Different choices than were made for Java so Scala offers different capabilities. Capabilities that you may find useful. Or not. But worth your while to consider.

Scala Style Guide

From the webpage:

In lieu of an official style guide from EPFL, or even an unofficial guide from a community site like Artima, this document is intended to outline some basic Scala stylistic guidelines which should be followed with more or less fervency. Wherever possible, this guide attempts to detail why a particular style is encouraged and how it relates to other alternatives. As with all style guides, treat this document as a list of rules to be broken. There are certainly times when alternative styles should be preferred over the ones given here.

Question: Is it a sign of maturity for a programming language to start having religious wars over styles?

Just curious. Thought this might mark a milestone in the development of Scala.