This may be somewhat tangential to this thread, but would now be a good time to start laying out some scala traits for Classifiers/Clusterers/Recommenders? I am totally scala-naive, but have been trying to keep up with the discussions.
I don't know if this is premature but it seems that now that the DSL data structures have been at least sketched out if not fully implemented, it would be useful to have these in place before people start porting too much over. It might be helpful in bringing in new contributions as well. It could also help regarding people's questions of integrating a future wrapper layer. > From: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 17:10:43 -0700 > Subject: Re: do we really need scala still > To: [email protected] > > +1 > > Let's use a successful scala model as a suggestion about where to go. It > seems plausible that Java could emulate the building of a lazy DSL logical > plan and then poke it in plausible ways with the addition of a wrapper > layer. But that only helps if the Scala layer succeeds. > > > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Also, i think that this is leaning towards false dilemma fallacy. Scala and > > java models could happily exist at the same time and hopefully, minimal > > fragmentation of the project if done with precision and care. > > > > > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > not sure there's much sense in taking user survey if we can't act on > > this. > > > In our situation, unfortunately, we don't have that many ideas to choose > > > from, so there's not much wiggle room imo. It is more like reinforcement > > > learning -- stuff that doesn't get used or supported, just dies .that's > > it. > > > Scala bindings, though thumb up'd internally, are yet to earn this status > > > externally. In that sense we always have been watching for use/support, > > > that's why we culled out tons of stuff. Nothing changes going forward (at > > > least at this point). If we have tons of new ideas/contributions, then it > > > may be different. What is weak, dies on its own pretty evidently without > > > much extra effort. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Pat Ferrel <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> We are asking that anyone using Mahout as a lib or in the DSL-shell to > > >> learn Scala. While I still think it’s the right idea, user’s may > > disagree. > > >> We should probably either solicit comments or at least keep an eye on > > >> reactions to this. Spark took this route when the question was even > > more in > > >> doubt and so is at least partially supporting multiple bindings. > > >> > > >> Not sure how far we want to carry this but we could supply Java bindings > > >> to the CLI-type things pretty easily. > > >> > > >> > > >> On May 26, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Well, first, functional programming in java8 is about 2-3 years late to > > >> the > > >> scene. So the reasoning along the lines, hey, we already are using tool > > A, > > >> and now tool B is available which is almost as good as A, so let's > > migrate > > >> to B, is fallible. Tool B must demonstrate not just matching > > capabilities, > > >> but far superb, to justify cost of such migration. > > >> > > >> Second, as other pointed, java 8 doesn't really match scala, not yet > > >> anyway. One important feature of scala bindings work is proper operator > > >> overload (R-like DSL). That would not be possible to do in java 8, as it > > >> stands. Yes, as other pointed, it makes things concise, but most > > >> importantly, it also makes things operation-centric and eliminates > > nested > > >> calls pile-up. > > >> > > >> Third, as it stands today, it would also presentn a problem from the > > Spark > > >> integration point of view. Spark does have java bindings, but first, > > they > > >> are underdefined (you can check spark list for tons of postings about > > >> missing equivalent capability), and they are certainly not > > java-8-vetted. > > >> So java api in Spark for java 8 purposes, as it stands, is a moot point. > > >> > > >> There are also a number other goodies and clashes that exist -- use of > > >> scala collections vs. Java collections, clean functional type syntax, > > >> magic > > >> methods, partially defined functions, case class matchers, implicits, > > view > > >> and context bounds etc. Etc., all that sh$tload of acrobatics that comes > > >> actually very handy in existing implemetations and has no substitute in > > >> Java 8. > > >> On May 25, 2014 12:48 PM, "bandi shankar" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > I was just thinking , do we still need scala . Since in java 8 we have > > >> > all(probably) kind of feature provided by scala. > > >> > Since I am new to group , so just thinking why not to make mahout away > > >> > from scala. Is there any specific reason to adopt scala. > > >> > > > >> > Bandi > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
