Another tour here: http://www.naildrivin5.com/scalatour
On 10 September 2010 19:31, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > Lift is very different, and I think that may be scaring of developers who > would otherwise consider Scala. > > You're much better learning Scala first, possibly with an existing Java > framework if you want web development. I'd recommend either wicket or Play > for this. You really don't want to be changing too many things at the same > time, you could even migrate an existing project one class at a time. > > (though I have had some success building a core system in Scala and > wrapping groovy/grails on top of that - just to see how well it worked) > > Once you're up to speed with Scala, then take a look at Lift. > > > On 10 September 2010 19:26, Serge Boulay <[email protected]> wrote: > >> so in terms on using Java web frameworks I can use anyone without >> problems? Lift just looks so different to me; probably a result of my lack >> of Scala knowledge. >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Kevin Wright >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Java compatibility is absolutely *not* "just a carrot", it cuts to the >>> very core of Scala's philosophy. This includes: >>> - running on the JVM >>> - being able to consume APIs declared in Java >>> - being able to provide APIs that can be used from Java code >>> >>> If you want to define an interface in Java, implement it in Scala, then >>> subclass that in Java again, you can. This is very useful when working with >>> libraries that use callbacks. >>> >>> I'd also defend scala as a glue/scripting language: >>> http://www.codecommit.com/blog/scala/scala-as-a-scripting-language >>> Once you have a grasp of functional concepts, it really helps being able >>> to work at a higher level of abstraction here. >>> and if you don't like FP, that's also fine. Type inference still makes >>> it feel very dynamic. >>> >>> >>> Finally, is it your business strategy that your software should continue >>> to take advantage of hardware improvements over the next 8 years? It's not >>> uncommon now for server-class hardware to have 8 cores, and following >>> moore's law, you can expect that number to double every 2 years, giving 128 >>> cores. >>> >>> So take another look at your multi-threaded code, the mutexes, the loving >>> placed uses of "synchronized", the re-entrant loops, the executors, the >>> mutable objects and think about them long and hard. Are they thread safe, >>> across 128 cores? Is that something you can be confident of? >>> >>> Then you've got to ask yourself just one more question: "do I feel >>> lucky?". Well, do ya, punk? >>> >>> >>> On 10 September 2010 09:03, Tommy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm actually glad to hear someone saying Groovy is more prevalent than >>>> Scala. From what I hear, Scala seems to be getting much more >>>> traction. >>>> >>>> You mentioned you'd chose Scala over Clojure because it's easier to >>>> migrate to. What do you mean by that? Migrate from what and to >>>> what? Are you sure your company needs to adopt Scala for a strategic >>>> reason? >>>> >>>> I'd argue Groovy is even easier to migrate to. By migrate, I mean >>>> from an organisation skills perspective. Groovy/Grails is very easy >>>> to pick up, especially for Java developers. It's especially good for >>>> quick/prototype/RAD type apps. It's also great for maintenance/ >>>> support perspective, parse XML, testing (both Groovy and Java code), >>>> scripts to automate day to day task, just great duct tape language in >>>> general. >>>> >>>> Now I'm not saying Scala is no good (I plan to start learning it soon >>>> after I finish my Haskell subject) but it really depends on the >>>> company. From my experience, companies don't decide to building >>>> realiable, robust, enterprise apps all the time whereas the small, >>>> quick, "out the door" apps are more common and Groovy/Grails probably >>>> suits better. >>>> >>>> IMHO, it's difficult for Scala to gain widespread use until the >>>> industry realises the benefit of functional/declarative languages. >>>> From what I hear, the power of Scala comes from its functional >>>> aspects, compatibility with Java is merely a carrot to get the Java >>>> community across. From my limited experience with Haskell so far, >>>> functional programming requires a different mindset from imperative >>>> languages and frankly, I don't think the industry is ready for it >>>> yet. Just remember how long it took for the industry to move from >>>> procedural languages to OO. If all programmers out there come from a >>>> Computer Science background then transition to Scala may not be too >>>> difficult but sadly, that's not the case. >>>> >>>> From a management/strategic perspective, it's probably more risky to >>>> adopt Scala too. Imagine a super-duper Scala programming builds this >>>> awesome enterprise app and leaves. Where are you going to hire the >>>> skills to support, maintain and extend it? Even if you do find the >>>> skills, he or she will probably be just as expensive as the super- >>>> duper Scala programmer that built it in the first place. >>>> >>>> Tommy. >>>> >>>> On Sep 10, 12:17 pm, Sean Griffin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > My intention is not as sensational as my subject, but it's succinct so >>>> > I'll go with it. >>>> > >>>> > In the popular JDK 7 conversation someone made this quote: "On the JVM >>>> > platform there are only two other languages that I'd consider >>>> > reasonable for adoption: Scala and Clojure." It's an interesting >>>> > statement to me given the current culture in my company. I actually >>>> > agree with this quote, but my reason isn't very scientific: those two >>>> > just "feel" like hardened options to me that move the thought barrier >>>> > forward more than others. Between the two I've chosen Scala because >>>> > a) I didn't like Lisp when I looked into it in college and b) Scala >>>> > wasn't so black and white, making it easier for me to migrate >>>> > gradually. >>>> > >>>> > Anyway, the point of my post is to discuss why Groovy is not often >>>> > mentioned in this group and is specifically left out of the quote >>>> > above. I don't like dynamic languages, so that's my reason for not >>>> > looking into it much, but people seem to like it. In my company it's >>>> > taken off like wildfire. I've tried valiantly to jumpstart Scala in >>>> > my organization, not because of fanboyism but because I honestly >>>> think/ >>>> > thought it would be the next step forward in the industry and I wanted >>>> > a head start. Despite this, Groovy is more popular hands down. I'm >>>> > just going off a feeling, but I'd place a bet that for every Scala >>>> > developer in my org there are 20 Groovy developers. Granted, most of >>>> > Groovy's usage is in tests, but it's making its way into production >>>> > code, particularly in the way of Grails. >>>> > >>>> > So I'd like to hear from others out there why this might be. I know >>>> > Groovy can be just Java and that you can gradually make your code more >>>> > "groovy", so it's easier to learn I guess? But that doesn't actually >>>> > make a ton of sense to me when I think about it because if I look at >>>> > some Groovy code that's really taking advantage of those features, >>>> > it's going to look so different than base Java that I suspect it >>>> > wouldn't be so different than a Java developer looking at someone's >>>> > Scala code. And the Scala code is type safe! And better supports >>>> > concurrency/parallelism! (I think). Is it the near nightmare that >>>> > plagued Scala 2.7 in the tooling space? >>>> > >>>> > I'm curious about everyone's thoughts... >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "The Java Posse" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kevin Wright >>> >>> mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] >>> pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright >>> twitter: @thecoda >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "The Java Posse" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "The Java Posse" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > Kevin Wright > > mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] > pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright > twitter: @thecoda > > -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
