Is the reason a val variable can be used to contain a function definition is because functions are first class citizens where they can be contained in variables?
In Scala damn near everything is an expression. From a practical perspective what that means is pretty much every bit of syntactically correct Scala code that you can write evaluates to an object that can you can do more Scala on. Examples of things you can do to these objects are: call a method on it, pass it to a function, or store it in a val. Expressions can be thought of in contrast to statements, which are just instructions to the computer to do something. An example of the use of statements in Scala are import commands. The heavy prevalence of expressions in Scala are a deliberate design choice intended to make the language more flexible and extensible.
Related
I have heard that it is a good practice in Scala to eliminate for loops and do things "the Scala way". I even found a Scala style checker at http://www.scalastyle.org. Are for loops a no-no in Scala? In a course at https://www.udemy.com/course/apache-spark-with-scala-hands-on-with-big-data/learn/lecture/5363798#overview I found this example, which makes me thing that for looks are okay to use, but using the Scala format and syntax of course, in a single line and not like the traditional Java for looks in multiple lines of code. See this example I found from that Udemy course:
val shipList = List("Enterprise", "Defiant", "Voyager", "Deep Space Nine")
for (ship <- shipList) {println(ship)}
That for loop prints this result, as expected:
Enterprise Defiant Voyager Deep Space Nine
I was wondering if using for as in the example above is acceptable Scala style code, or it if is a no-no and why. Thank you!
There is no problem in this for loop, but you can use functions form List object for your work in more functional way.
e.g. instead of using
val shipList = List("Enterprise", "Defiant", "Voyager", "Deep Space Nine")
for (ship <- shipList) {println(ship)}
You can use
val shipList = List("Enterprise", "Defiant", "Voyager", "Deep Space Nine")
shipList.foreach(element => println(element) )
or
shipList.foreach(println)
You can use for loops in Scala, there is no problem with that. But the difference is that this for-loop is not an expression and does not return a value, so you need to use a variable in order to return any value. Scala gives preference to work with immutable types.
In your example you print messages in the console, you need to perform a "side effect" to extract the value breaking the referencial transparency, I mean, you depend on the IO operation to extract a value, or you have mutate a variable which is in the scope which maybe is being accessed by another thread or another concurrent task thereby there is no guarantee that the value that you collect wont be what you are expecting. Obviously, all these hypothesis are related to concurrent/parallel programming and there is where Scala and the immutable style help.
To show the elements of a collection you can use a for loop, but if you want to count the total number of chars in Scala you do that using a expression like:
val chars = shipList.foldLeft(0)((a, b) => a + b.length)
To sum up, most of the times the Scala code that you will read uses immutable style of programming although not always because Scala supports the other way of coding too, but it is weird to find something using a classic Java OOP style, mutating object instances and using getters and setters.
>Option(None)
res2: Option[None.type] = Some(None)
Why it is possible? Why Option of None doesn't returns None?
Scala (like most statically typed functional programming languages) is built out of pieces that can be composed together in consistent ways. This is in contrast with other programming languages and libraries (often dynamic ones) that attempt to predict the programmer's intentions and often support this by having lots of special cases (automatic flattening of nested constructions, etc.).
In Scala Option is just a type constructor—you can create an Option[A] for literally any type A by writing Option(a). Option[Int] is itself a type, for example, so you could have an Option[Option[Int]], an Option[Option[Option[Int]]], and so on. There are no special cases, just a general mechanism for building up programs.
Not sure if this is a good answer. But try read next article.
http://danielwestheide.com/blog/2012/12/19/the-neophytes-guide-to-scala-part-5-the-option-type.html
Some is actually a wrapper for the value you trying to use. So your code is valid.
I've been reading a lot of other people's Scala code recently, and one of the things that I have difficultly with (coming from Java) is a lack of explicit type annotations.
It's certainly convenient when writing code to be able to leave out type annotations -- however when reading code I often find that explicit type annotations help me to understand at a glance what code is doing more easily.
The Scala style guide (http://docs.scala-lang.org/style/types.html) doesn't seem to provide any definitive guidance on this, stating:
Use type inference where possible, but put clarity first, and favour explicitness in public APIs.
To my mind, this is a bit contradictory. While it's clearly obvious what type this variable is:
val tokens = new HashMap[String, Int]
It's not so obvious what type this one is:
val tokens = readTokens()
So, if I was putting clarity first I would probably annotate all variables where the type is not already declared on the same line.
Do any Scala practitioners have guidance on this? Am I crazy to be considering adding type annotations to my local variables? I'm particularly interested in hearing from folks who spend a lot of time reading scala code (for example, in code reviews), as well as writing it.
It's not so obvious what type this one is:
val tokens = readTokens()
Good names are important: the name is plural, ergo it returns some collection of some kind. The most general collection types in Scala are Traversable and Iterator, and they mostly share a common interface, so it's not really important which one of the two it is. The name also talks about "reading tokens", ergo it obviously should return Tokens in some fashion. And last but not least, the method call has parentheses, which according to the style guide means it has side-effects, so I wouldn't count on being able to traverse the collection more than once.
Ergo, the return type is something like
Traversable[Token]
or
Iterator[Token]
and which of the two it is doesn't really matter because their client interfaces are mostly identical.
Note also that the latter constraint (only traversing the collection once) isn't even captured in the type, even if you were providing an explicit type, you would still have to look at the name and the style!
I am new to Scala and heard a lot that everything is an object in Scala. What I don't get is what's the advantage of "everything's an object"? What are things that I cannot do if everything is not an object? Examples are welcome. Thanks
The advantage of having "everything" be an object is that you have far fewer cases where abstraction breaks.
For example, methods are not objects in Java. So if I have two strings, I can
String s1 = "one";
String s2 = "two";
static String caps(String s) { return s.toUpperCase(); }
caps(s1); // Works
caps(s2); // Also works
So we have abstracted away string identity in our operation of making something upper case. But what if we want to abstract away the identity of the operation--that is, we do something to a String that gives back another String but we want to abstract away what the details are? Now we're stuck, because methods aren't objects in Java.
In Scala, methods can be converted to functions, which are objects. For instance:
def stringop(s: String, f: String => String) = if (s.length > 0) f(s) else s
stringop(s1, _.toUpperCase)
stringop(s2, _.toLowerCase)
Now we have abstracted the idea of performing some string transformation on nonempty strings.
And we can make lists of the operations and such and pass them around, if that's what we need to do.
There are other less essential cases (object vs. class, primitive vs. not, value classes, etc.), but the big one is collapsing the distinction between method and object so that passing around and abstracting over functionality is just as easy as passing around and abstracting over data.
The advantage is that you don't have different operators that follow different rules within your language. For example, in Java to perform operations involving objects, you use the dot name technique of calling the code (static objects still use the dot name technique, but sometimes the this object or the static object is inferred) while built-in items (not objects) use a different method, that of built-in operator manipulation.
Number one = Integer.valueOf(1);
Number two = Integer.valueOf(2);
Number three = one.plus(two); // if only such methods existed.
int one = 1;
int two = 2;
int three = one + two;
the main differences is that the dot name technique is subject to polymorphisim, operator overloading, method hiding, and all the good stuff that you can do with Java objects. The + technique is predefined and completely not flexible.
Scala circumvents the inflexibility of the + method by basically handling it as a dot name operator, and defining a strong one-to-one mapping of such operators to object methods. Hence, in Scala everything is an object means that everything is an object, so the operation
5 + 7
results in two objects being created (a 5 object and a 7 object) the plus method of the 5 object being called with the parameter 7 (if my scala memory serves me correctly) and a "12" object being returned as the value of the 5 + 7 operation.
This everything is an object has a lot of benefits in a functional programming environment, for example, blocks of code now are object too, making it possible to pass back and forth blocks of code (without names) as parameters, yet still be bound to strict type checking (the block of code only returns Long or a subclass of String or whatever).
When it boils down to it, it makes some kinds of solutions very easy to implement, and often the inefficiencies are mitigated by the lack of need to handle "move into primitives, manipulate, move out of primitives" marshalling code.
One specific advantage that comes to my mind (since you asked for examples) is what in Java are primitive types (int, boolean ...) , in Scala are objects that you can add functionality to with implicit conversions. For example, if you want to add a toRoman method to ints, you could write an implicit class like:
implicit class RomanInt(i:Int){
def toRoman = //some algorithm to convert i to a Roman representation
}
Then, you could call this method from any Int literal like :
val romanFive = 5.toRoman // V
This way you can 'pimp' basic types to adapt them to your needs
In addition to the points made by others, I always emphasize that the uniform treatment of all values in Scala is in part an illusion. For the most part it is a very welcome illusion. And Scala is very smart to use real JVM primitives as much as possible and to perform automatic transformations (usually referred to as boxing and unboxing) only as much as necessary.
However, if the dynamic pattern of application of automatic boxing and unboxing is very high, there can be undesirable costs (both memory and CPU) associated with it. This can be partially mitigated with the use of specialization, which creates special versions of generic classes when particular type parameters are of (programmer-specified) primitive types. This avoids boxing and unboxing but comes at the cost of more .class files in your running application.
Not everything is an object in Scala, though more things are objects in Scala than their analogues in Java.
The advantage of objects is that they're bags of state which also have some behavior coupled with them. With the addition of polymorphism, objects give you ways of changing the implicit behavior and state. Enough with the poetry, let's go into some examples.
The if statement is not an object, in either scala or java. If it were, you could be able to subclass it, inject another dependency in its place, and use it to do stuff like logging to a file any time your code makes use of the if statement. Wouldn't that be magical? It would in some cases help you debug stuff, and in other cases it would make your hairs grow white before you found a bug caused by someone overwriting the behavior of if.
Visiting an objectless, statementful world: Imaging your favorite OOP programming language. Think of the standard library it provides. There's plenty of classes there, right? They offer ways for customization, right? They take parameters that are other objects, they create other objects. You can customize all of these. You have polymorphism. Now imagine that all the standard library was simply keywords. You wouldn't be able to customize nearly as much, because you can't overwrite keywords. You'd be stuck with whatever cases the language designers decided to implement, and you'd be helpless in customizing anything there. Such languages exist, you know them well, they're the sequel-like languages. You can barely create functions there, but in order to customize the behavior of the SELECT statement, new versions of the language had to appear which included the features most desired. This would be an extreme world, where you'd only be able to program by asking the language designers for new features (which you might not get, because someone else more important would require some feature incompatible with what you want)
In conclusion, NOT everything is an object in scala: Classes, expressions, keywords and packages surely aren't. More things however are, like functions.
What's IMHO a nice rule of thumb is that more objects equals more flexibility
P.S. in Python for example, even more things are objects (like the classes themselves, the analogous concept for packages (that is python modules and packages). You'd see how there, black magic is easier to do, and that brings both good and bad consequences.
This is just one of those "I was wondering..." questions.
Scala has immutable data structures and (optional) lazy vals etc.
How close can a Scala program be to one that is fully pure (in a functional programming sense) and fully lazy (or as Ingo points out, can it be sufficiently non-strict)? What values are unavoidably mutable and what evaluation unavoidably greedy?
Regarding lazyness - currently, passing a parameter to a method is by default strict:
def square(a: Int) = a * a
but you use call-by-name parameters:
def square(a: =>Int) = a * a
but this is not lazy in the sense that it computes the value only once when needed:
scala> square({println("calculating");5})
calculating
calculating
res0: Int = 25
There's been some work into adding lazy method parameters, but it hasn't been integrated yet (the below declaration should print "calculating" from above only once):
def square(lazy a: Int) = a * a
This is one piece that is missing, although you could simulate it with a local lazy val:
def square(ap: =>Int) = {
lazy val a = ap
a * a
}
Regarding mutability - there is nothing holding you back from writing immutable data structures and avoid mutation. You can do this in Java or C as well. In fact, some immutable data structures rely on the lazy primitive to achieve better complexity bounds, but the lazy primitive can be simulated in other languages as well - at the cost of extra syntax and boilerplate.
You can always write immutable data structures, lazy computations and fully pure programs in Scala. The problem is that the Scala programming model allows writing non pure programs as well, so the type checker can't always infer some properties of the program (such as purity) which it could infer given that the programming model was more restrictive.
For example, in a language with pure expressions the a * a in the call-by-name definition above (a: =>Int) could be optimized to evaluate a only once, regardless of the call-by-name semantics. If the language allows side-effects, then such an optimization is not always applicable.
Scala can be as pure and lazy as you like, but a) the compiler won't keep you honest with regards to purity and b) it will take a little extra work to make it lazy. There's nothing too profound about this; you can even write lazy and pure Java code if you really want to (see here if you dare; achieving laziness in Java requires eye-bleeding amounts of nested anonymous inner classes).
Purity
Whereas Haskell tracks impurities via the type system, Scala has chosen not to go that route, and it's difficult to tack that sort of thing on when you haven't made it a goal from the beginning (and also when interoperability with a thoroughly impure language like Java is a major goal of the language).
That said, some believe it's possible and worthwhile to make the effort to document effects in Scala's type system. But I think purity in Scala is best treated as a matter of self-discipline, and you must be perpetually skeptical about the supposed purity of third-party code.
Laziness
Haskell is lazy by default but can be made stricter with some annotations sprinkled in your code... Scala is the opposite: strict by default but with the lazy keyword and by-name parameters you can make it as lazy as you like.
Feel free to keep things immutable. On the other hand, there's no side effect tracking, so you can't enforce or verify it.
As for non-strictness, here's the deal... First, if you choose to go completely non-strict, you'll be forsaking all of Scala's classes. Even Scalaz is not non-strict for the most part. If you are willing to build everything yourself, you can make your methods non-strict and your values lazy.
Next, I wonder if implicit parameters can be non-strict or not, or what would be the consequences of making them non-strict. I don't see a problem, but I could be wrong.
But, most problematic of all, function parameters are strict, and so are closures parameters.
So, while it is theoretically possible to go fully non-strict, it will be incredibly inconvenient.