I'm with Neha on this one. I don't have a strong preference on 2 vs 4 but I do think that consistency is more important. It makes writing code a bit easier especially since patches are increasingly likely to touch both Java and Scala code and it's nice to not think about formatting certain files differently from others.
Aditya On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > Ismael, > > Makes sense. I think there is a good chance that it is just our ignorance > of scala tools. I really do like having compile time enforced formatting > and dependency checking as we have for java. But we really put no effort > into trying to improve the scala developer experience so it may be an > unfair comparison. > > -Jay > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > I do agree that working with a mixture of scala and java is a pain in > the > > > butt. What about considering the more extreme idea of just moving the > > > remaining server-side scala into java? I like Scala, but the tooling > and > > > compatibility story for java is better, and Java 8 addressed some of > the > > > gaps. For a system like Kafka I do kind of think that what Scala offers > > is > > > less useful, and the kind of boring Java tooling like IDE support, > > > findbugs, checkstyle, simple exception stack traces, and a good > > > compatability story is more important. > > > > > > I can certainly see the case for avoiding the complexity of two different > > languages (assuming that the benefits are not worth it). However, I am > not > > sure about the "findbugs, checkstyle" point. Static checking is an area > > that Scala does quite well (better than Java in many ways): scalastyle, > > abide, scalariform, wartremover, scapegoat, etc. And Scala 2.11 also has > a > > number of Xlint warnings. > > > > Best, > > Ismael > > >
