So, pattern matching in functional languages is pretty awesome. I wondering why most imperative languages haven't implemented this feature? To my understanding, Scala is the only "mainstream" imperative language that has pattern matching. The case/switch structure is just so much less powerful.
In particular, I am interested in whether the lack of pattern matching is because of technical reasons or historical reasons?
It's mostly historic. Pattern matching -- and more to the point, algebraic data types -- was invented around 1980 for the functional language Hope. From there it quickly made it into ML, and was later adopted in other functional languages like Miranda and Haskell. The mainstream imperative world usually takes a few decades longer to pick up new programming language ideas.
One reason that particularly hindered adoption is that the mainstream has long been dominated by object-oriented ideology. In that world, anything that isn't expressed by objects and subtyping is considered morally "wrong". One could argue that algebraic data types are kind of an antithesis to that.
Perhaps there are also some technical reasons that make it more natural in functional languages:
Regular scoping rules and fine-grained binding constructs for variables are the norm in functional languages, but less common in mainstream imperative languages.
Especially so since patterns bind immutable variables.
Type checking pattern matches relies on the more well-formed structure and rigidness of functional type systems, and their close ties to computational logic. Mainstream type systems are usually far away from that.
Algebraic data types require heap allocation (unless you want to waste a lot of space and prohibit recursion), and would be very inconvenient without garbage collection. However, GCs in mainstream languages, where they exist, are typically optimised for heavyweight objects, not lightweight functional data.
Until recently (more precisely: until Scala), it was believed that pattern matching was incompatible with representation ignorance (i.e. the defining characteristic of OO). Since OO is a major paradigm in mainstream languages, having a seemingly irreconcilable feature in a mainstream language seemingly didn't make sense.
In Scala, pattern matching is reconciled with OO, simply by having the match operations be method calls on an object. (Rather simple in hindsight, no?) In particular, matches are performed by calling methods on extractor objects, which, just like any other object, only have access to the public API of the object being examined, thus not breaking encapsulation.
A pattern matching library inspired by Scala, in which patterns are first-class objects themselves (inspired by F#'s Active Patterns) was added to Newspeak, a very dynamic language that takes OO very seriously. (Newspeak doesn't even have variables, just methods.)
Note that regular expressions are an example of a limited form of pattern matching. Polymorphic method dispatch can also be seen as an example of a limited form of pattern matching (without the extraction features). In fact, method dispatch is powerful enough to implement full pattern matching as evidenced by Scala and especially Newspeak (in the latter, pattern matching is even implemented as a library, completely separate from the language).
Here are my 2 cents. Take a simple Option pattern match:
val o = Some(1)
o match {
case Some(i) => i + 1
case None => 0
}
There are so many things going on here in Scala. Compiler checks that you have exhaustive match, creates a new variable i for the scope of the case statement and of course extracts the value from Option in a first place somehow.
Extracting a value would be doable in languages like Java. Implement unapply method(s) of some agreed upon interface and you are done. Now you can return values to a caller.
Providing this extracted value to the caller, which essentially requires a closure is not so convenient to do in regular OO languages without closure support. It can become quite ugly in Java7 where you would probably use Observer pattern.
If you add other pattern matching abilities of Scala in the mix like matching on specific types, i.e. case i: Int =>; using default clause _ when you want to (compiler has to check exhaustiveness somehow whether you use _ or not); additional checks like case i if i > 0 =>; and so on it quickly becomes very ugly from client side to use (think Java).
If you drop all those fancy pattern matching features your pattern match would be pretty much at the level of Java's switch statement.
It looks like it just would not be worth it, even if possible, to implement using anonymous classes without lambdas support and strong type system.
I would say that it is more for historical than technical reasons. Pattern matching works well with algebraic data types which have also historically been associated with functional languages.
Scala is probably a bad example of an imperative language with pattern matching because it tends to favour the functional style, though it doesn't enforce it.
An example of a modern, mostly imperative language with pattern matching is Rust.
Imperative and runs on the metal, but still has algebraic data types, pattern matching and other features that are more common to functional languages. But its' compiler implementation is a lot more complex than that of a C compiler
Related
If I add a new case class, does that mean I need to search through all of the pattern matching code and find out where the new class needs to be handled? I've been learning the language recently, and as I read about some of the arguments for and against pattern matching, I've been confused about where it should be used. See the following:
Pro:
Odersky1 and
Odersky2
Con:
Beust
The comments are pretty good in each case, too. So is pattern matching something to be excited about or something I should avoid using? Actually, I imagine the answer is "it depends on when you use it," but what are some positive use cases for it and what are some negative ones?
Jeff, I think you have the right intuition: it depends.
Object-oriented class hierarchies with virtual method dispatch are good when you have a relatively fixed set of methods that need to be implemented, but many potential subclasses that might inherit from the root of the hierarchy and implement those methods. In such a setup, it's relatively easy to add new subclasses (just implement all the methods), but relatively difficult to add new methods (you have to modify all the subclasses to make sure they properly implement the new method).
Data types with functionality based on pattern matching are good when you have a relatively fixed set of classes that belong to a data type, but many potential functions that operate on that data type. In such a setup, it's relatively easy to add new functionality for a data type (just pattern match on all its classes), but relatively difficult to add new classes that are part of the data type (you have to modify all the functions that match on the data type to make sure they properly support the new class).
The canonical example for the OO approach is GUI programming. GUI elements need to support very little functionality (drawing themselves on the screen is the bare minimum), but new GUI elements are added all the time (buttons, tables, charts, sliders, etc). The canonical example for the pattern matching approach is a compiler. Programming languages usually have a relatively fixed syntax, so the elements of the syntax tree will change rarely (if ever), but new operations on syntax trees are constantly being added (faster optimizations, more thorough type analysis, etc).
Fortunately, Scala lets you combine both approaches. Case classes can both be pattern matched and support virtual method dispatch. Regular classes support virtual method dispatch and can be pattern matched by defining an extractor in the corresponding companion object. It's up to the programmer to decide when each approach is appropriate, but I think both are useful.
While I respect Cedric, he's completely wrong on this issue. Scala's pattern matching can be fully-encapsulated from class changes when desired. While it is true that a change to a case class would require changing any corresponding pattern matching instances, this is only when using such classes in a naive fashion.
Scala's pattern matching always delegates to the deconstructor of a class's companion object. With a case class, this deconstructor is automatically generated (along with a factory method in the companion object), though it is still possible to override this auto-generated version. At all times, you can assert complete control over the pattern matching process, insulating any patterns from potential changes in the class itself. Thus, pattern matching is simply another way of accessing class data through the safe filter of encapsulation, just like any other method.
So, Dr. Odersky's opinion would be the one to trust here, particularly given the sheer volume of research he has performed in the area of object-oriented programming and design.
As for where it should be used, that is entirely according to taste. If it makes your code more concise and maintainable, use it! Otherwise, don't. For most object-oriented programs, pattern matching is unnecessary. However, once you begin to integrate more functional idioms (Option, List, etc) I think you'll find that pattern matching will significantly reduce syntactic overhead as well as improving the safety offered by the type system. In general, any time you want to extract data while simultaneously testing some condition (e.g. extracting a value from Some), pattern matching will likely be of use.
Pattern matching is definitely good if you are doing functional programming. In case of OO, there are some cases where it is good. In Cedric's example itself, it depends on how you view the print() method conceptually. Is it a behavior of each Term object? Or is it something outside it? I would say it is outside, and makes sense to do pattern matching. On the other hand if you have an Employee class with various subclasses, it is a poor design choice to do pattern matching on an attribute of it (say name) in the base class.
Also pattern matching offers an elegant way of unpacking members of a class.
I don't really know if any common terms exist for what I'm asking about, so I apologize for possible stupid misuse of the terms.
I'm interested, if there are any solutions or at least experiments for creating "pure logic" code, abstract of any architectural patterns, and later generation of architecture-specific code based on it.
For example:
"pure logic" is addition of two integers — a and b
it can be dumped as inline "= a + b"
or as a function "function sum(a,b){return a+b}; =sum(a,b)"
or as a class "class Sum(a, b){...}; s = new Sum(a,b); =s.result();
or maybe this class has no constructor arguments but requires applying them after construction
or it accepts a dictionary with dozen possible keys including 2 we need
or maybe we have DI/IoC container and we call lazy-loaded singleton serevice with 2 injected arguments
and so on
So, basically, it's like we have a mix of global functions and variables, and then we apply generation rules and templates to get a specific coder-friendly result.
Basically, you cannot escape having to define some syntax, and giving it semantics. And that gives you a language. In this language you have types (integers) and an operation (you can add them).
So now this business of generating code is basically your compiler for the language, which uses various high level languages as the back end.
Since some of the languages are perhaps not as "pure" as your high level language, or are semantically distant in various ways, the generated code in some of the back-end dialects might end up looking like dog's breakfast in order to precisely implement the semantics.
I'm starting to learn Functional Programming and would like to do so with Scala, not Haskell or Lisp.
But some people claim that learning Scala as the first functional language slows down your learning of Functional Programming, because Scala allows you to program both ways, and one tends to program the procedural way when confronted with a hard problem.
How can i make sure that 'm programming in a purely functional way? Maybe, due to not being able to properly distinguish both styles, I'll inadvertently program procedurally).
I know, for example, that I should only use vals and not vars.
The other answers have made some good points, but for an attempt to quickly get down some guidelines, here's how I'd start:
Firstly, some things to completely avoid:
Don't use the var keyword.
Don't use the while keyword.
Don't use anything in the scala.collection.mutable package.
Don't use the asInstanceOf method.
Don't use null. If you ever come across null (in someone else's code), immediately wrap it in a more appropriate datatype (usually Option will do nicely).
Then, a couple of things to generally avoid:
Be wary of calling anything with a return type of Unit. A function with a return type of Unit is either doing nothing, or acting only by side-effects. In some cases you won't be able to avoid this (IO being the obvious one), but where you see it elsewhere it's probably a sign of impurity.
Be wary of calling into Java libraries - they are typically not designed with functional programming in mind, and will often require you to abandon the functional approach.
Once you've avoided these things, what can you do to move your code to being more functional?
When you're performing direct recursion, look for opportunities to generalise it through the use of higher order combinators. fold is likely your biggest candidate here - most operations on lists can be implemented in terms of a suitable fold.
When you see destructuring operations on a data structure (typically through pattern matching), consider whether instead you can lift the computation into the structure and avoid destructuring it. An obvious example is the following code snippet:
foo match {
case Some(x) => Some(x + 2)
case None => None
}
can be replaced with:
foo map ( _ + 2 )
I dare say that your goal is already misleading:
I'm starting to learn Function Programming, and I really wanna learn
Scala, not Haskell or Lisp.
If you are really interested in learning concepts of function programming, then why not use a language such as Haskell that (more or less) does not allow you to use procedural or object-oriented concepts? In the end, the language is "just" a tool that helps you learning concepts of FP, you could just as well read loads of papers about FP. At least theoretically, I think it is usually easier to learn concepts of computer science with concrete tools at hand.
On the other hand, if you are interested in learning the language Scala, then why not use all features that it offers, regardless of whether they stem from the FP or the OO world?
In order to conclude with a somewhat practical advise: You could search for FP tutorials that use Scala or for blog entries etc. that describe how to realise certain FP-concepts in Scala and try to follow them. This way, it is less likely that you make use of non-FP concepts.
You don't buy a Ferarri to deliver furniture. Scala's fundamental strength is the fact that in your words, it goes both ways:). Whether or not you are programming in a functional style is decided by the techniques you use.
The best thing you can do is thoroughly review fundamental concepts of functional programming and seek the appropriate Scala implementation of the respective concepts. But if you want to program purely functional style, then go for Haskell, Lisp, Erlang, OCaml, or whatever other purely functional dialect.
Functional programming
Introduction
Functional thinking
Scala
If you want to learn Scala, then make sure to include both OO and FP in your learning curve. Lambda expressions + OO concepts + syntactic sugar made possible by IMHO the most advanced compiler on the face of the planet lead to something quite amazing. Take advantage of it!
I think learning is non linear process, it helps to see lots of ways of doing the same thing, also be opportunistic and use any learning resources that are available for you. For example Martin Odersky the creator of Scala offers a free course called "Functional Programming Principles in Scala" https://class.coursera.org/progfun-002/class/index there are some very high quality video lectures, and some really good assignments where the automated grader will tell you that your code is not functional enough and you loose style points because you are using var instead of val
I think the thing you want to focus on is learning the Functional Programming Paradigm and for me learning a paradigm is about learning what types of problems are easy to solve in one paradigm and are hard to solve in another paradigm. Focus on the paradigm and I think you will find that learning both about Haskell and Scala will teach you the functional paradigm faster, because you will be able to ask the question what are the common features between Scala and Haskell, what are the differences .... etc
I know, for example, that I should only use vals and not vars.
That's already a good start, other non-so-functional things to avoid are mutable collections and loops.
Have a look at immutable collections and recursion instead.
Of course, once you are familiar with the functional concepts, there might also be good reasons to use scala's non-functional features.
I've heard people claim that:
Scala's type system is amazing (existential types, variant, co-variant)
Because of the power of macros, everything is a library in Clojure: (pattern matching, logic programming, non-determinism, ..)
Question:
If both assertions are true, why is Scala's type system not a library in Clojure? Is it because:
types are one of these things that do not work well as a library? [i.e. the changes would somehow have to threaded through every existing clojure library, including clojure.core?]
is Scala's notion of types fundamentally incompatible with clojure protocol / records?
... ?
It's an interesting question.
You are certainly right about Scala having an amazing type system, and about Clojure being phenomenal for meta-programming and extension of the language (although that is about more than just macros....).
A few reasons I can think of:
Clojure is a dynamically typed language while Scala is a statically typed language. Having powerful type inference isn't so much use in a language where you can assume relatively little about the types of your inputs.
Clojure already has a very interesting project to add typing as a library (Typed Clojure) which looks very promising - however it's very different in approach to Scala as it is designed for a dynamic language from the start (inspired more by Typed Racket, I believe).
Clojure philosophy actually discourages certain OOP concepts (particularly implementation inheritance, mutable objects, and data encapsulation). A type system that supports these things (as Scala does) wouldn't be a good fit for Clojure idioms - at best they would be ignored, but they could easily encourage a style of development that would cause people to run into severe problems later.
Clojure already provides tools that solve many of the problems you would typically solve with types in other languages - e.g. the use of protocols for polymorphism.
There's a strong focus in the Clojure community on simplicity (in the sense of the excellent video "Simple Made Easy" - see particularly the slide at 39:30). While Scala's type system is certainly amazing, I think it's a stretch to describe it as "Simple"
Putting in a Scala-style type system would probably require a complete rewrite of the Clojure compiler and make it substantially more complex. Nobody seems to have signed up so far to take on that particular challenge... and there's a risk that even if someone were willing and able to do this then the changes could be rejected for the various cultural / technical reasons covered above.
In the absence of a major change to Clojure itself (which I think would be unlikely) then one interesting possibility would be to create a DSL within Clojure that provided Scala-style type inference for a specific domain and compiled this DSL direct to optimised Java bytecode. I could see that being a useful approach for specific problem domains (large scale numerical data crunching with big matrices, for example).
To simply answer your question "... why is Scala's type system not a library in Clojure?":
Because the type system is part of the scala compiler and not of the scala library. The whole power of scalas type system only exists at compile time. The JVM has no support for things like that, because of type erasure and also, because it would simply slow down execution. And also there is no need for it. If you have a statically typed language, you don't need type information at runtime, unless you want to do dirty stuff.
edit:
#mikera the jvm is sure capable of running the scala compiler, I did not say anything like that. I just said, that the jvm has no support for type systems like that. It does not even support generics. At runtime all these types are gone. The compiler checks for the correctness of a program and removes all the higher kinded types / generics.
example:
val xs: List[Int] = List(1,2,3,4)
val x1: Int = xs.head
will at runtime look like this:
val xs: List = List.apply(1,2,3,4)
val x1: Int = xs.head.asInstanceOf[Int]
But it doesn't matter, because the compiler checked it before. You can only get in trouble here, when you use reflection, because you could put any value in the list and it would break at runtime exactly where the value is casted to Int.
And this is one of the reasons, why the scala type system is not part of the scala library, but built into the compiler.
And also the question of the OP was "... why is Scala's type system not a library in Clojure?" and not "Is it possible to create a type system such as scalas for clojure?" and I perfectly answered that question.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
What are the most commonly held misconceptions about the Scala language, and what counter-examples exist to these?
UPDATE
I was thinking more about various claims I've seen, such as "Scala is dynamically typed" and "Scala is a scripting language".
I accept that "Scala is [Simple/Complex]" might be considered a myth, but it's also a viewpoint that's very dependent on context. My personal belief is that it's the very same features that can make Scala appear either simple or complex depending oh who's using them. Ultimately, the language just offers abstractions, and it's the way that these are used that shapes perceptions.
Not only that, but it has a certain tendency to inflame arguments, and I've not yet seen anyone change a strongly-held viewpoint on the topic...
Myth: That Scala’s “Option” and Haskell’s “Maybe” types won’t save you from null. :-)
Debunked: Why Scala's "Option" and Haskell's "Maybe" types will save you from null by James Iry.
Myth: Scala supports operator overloading.
Actually, Scala just has very flexible method naming rules and infix syntax for method invocation, with special rules for determining method precedence when the infix syntax is used with 'operators'. This subtle distinction has critical implications for the utility and potential for abuse of this language feature compared to true operator overloading (a la C++), as explained more thoroughly in James Iry's answer to this question.
Myth: methods and functions are the same thing.
In fact, a function is a value (an instance of one of the FunctionN classes), while a method is not. Jim McBeath explains the differences in greater detail. The most important practical distinctions are:
Only methods can have type parameters
Only methods can take implicit arguments
Only methods can have named and default parameters
When referring to a method, an underscore is often necessary to distinguish method invocation from partial function application (e.g. str.length evaluates to a number, while str.length _ evaluates to a zero-argument function).
I disagree with the argument that Scala is hard because you can use very advanced features to do hard stuff with it. The scalability of Scala means that you can write DSL abstractions and high-level APIs in Scala itself that otherwise would need a language extension. So to be fair you need to compare Scala libraries to other languages compilers. People don't say that C# is hard because (I assume, don't have first hand knowledge on this) the C# compiler is pretty impenetrable. For Scala it's all out in the open. But we need to get to a point where we make clear that most people don't need to write code on this level, nor should they do it.
I think a common misconception amongst many scala developers, those at EPFL (and yourself, Kevin) is that "scala is a simple language". The argument usually goes something like this:
scala has few keywords
scala reuses the same few constructs (e.g. PartialFunction syntax is used as the body of a catch block)
scala has a few simple rules which allow you to create library code (which may appear as if the language has special keywords/constructs). I'm thinking here of implicits; methods containing colons; allowed identifier symbols; the equivalence of X(a, b) and a X b with extractors. And so on
scala's declaration-site variance means that the type system just gets out of your way. No more wildcards and ? super T
My personal opinion is that this argument is completely and utterly bogus. Scala's type system taken together with implicits allows one to write frankly impenetrable code for the average developer. Any suggestion otherwise is just preposterous, regardless of what the above "metrics" might lead you to think. (Note here that those who I've seen scoffing at the non-complexity of Java on Twitter and elsewhere happen to be uber-clever types who, it sometimes seems, had a grasp of monads, functors and arrows before they were out of short pants).
The obvious arguments against this are (of course):
you don't have to write code like this
you don't have to pander to the average developer
Of these, it seems to me that only #2 is valid. Whether or not you write code quite as complex as scalaz, I think it's just silly to use the language (and continue to use it) with no real understanding of the type system. How else can one get the best out of the language?
There is a myth that Scala is difficult because Scala is a complex language.
This is false--by a variety of metrics, Scala is no more complex than Java. (Size of grammar, lines of code or number of classes or number of methods in the standard API, etc..)
But it is undeniably the case that Scala code can be ferociously difficult to understand. How can this be, if Scala is not a complex language?
The answer is that Scala is a powerful language. Unlike Java, which has many special constructs (like enums) that accomplish one particular thing--and requires you to learn specialized syntax that applies just to that one thing, Scala has a variety of very general constructs. By mixing and matching these constructs, one can express very complex ideas with very little code. And, unsurprisingly, if someone comes along who has not had the same complex idea and tries to figure out what you're doing with this very compact code, they may find it daunting--more daunting, even, than if they saw a couple of pages of code to do the same thing, since then at least they'd realize how much conceptual stuff there was to understand!
There is also an issue of whether things are more complex than they really need to be. For example, some of the type gymnastics present in the collections library make the collections a joy to use but perplexing to implement or extend. The goals here are not particularly complicated (e.g. subclasses should return their own types), but the methods required (higher-kinded types, implicit builders, etc.) are complex. (So complex, in fact, that Java just gives up and doesn't try, rather than doing it "properly" as in Scala. Also, in principle, there is hope that this will improve in the future, since the method can evolve to more closely match the goal.) In other cases, the goals are complex; list.filter(_<5).sorted.grouped(10).flatMap(_.tail.headOption) is a bit of a mess, but if you really want to take all numbers less than 5, and then take every 2nd number out of 10 in the remaining list, well, that's just a somewhat complicated idea, and the code pretty much says what it does if you know the basic collections operations.
Summary: Scala is not complex, but it allows you to compactly express complex ideas. Compact expression of complex ideas can be daunting.
There is a myth that Scala is non-deployable, whereas a wide range of third-party Java libraries can be deployed without a second thought.
To the extent that this myth exists, I suspect it exists among people who are not accustomed to separating a virtual machine and API from a language and compiler. If java == javac == Java API in your mind, you might get a little nervous if someone suggests using scalac instead of javac, because you see how nicely your JVM runs.
Scala ends up as JVM bytecode, plus its own custom library. There's no reason to be any more worried about deploying Scala on a small scale or as part of some other large project as there is in deploying any other library that may or may not stay compatible with whichever JVM you prefer. Granted, the Scala development team is not backed by quite as much force as the Google collections, or Apache Commons, but its got at least as much weight behind it as things like the Java Advanced Imaging project.
Myth:
def foo() = "something"
and
def bar = "something"
is the same.
It is not; you can call foo(), but bar() tries to call the apply method of StringLike with no arguments (results in an error).
Some common misconceptions related to Actors library:
Actors handle incoming messages in a parallel, in multiple threads / against a thread pool (in fact, handling messages in multiple threads is contrary to the actors concept and may lead to racing conditions - all messages are sequentially handled in one thread (thread-based actors use one thread both for mailbox processing and execution; event-based actors may share one VM thread for execution, using multi-threaded executor to schedule mailbox processing))
Uncaught exceptions don't change actor's behavior/state (in fact, all uncaught exceptions terminate the actor)
Myth: You can replace a fold with a reduce when computing something like a sum from zero.
This is a common mistake/misconception among new users of Scala, particularly those without prior functional programming experience. The following expressions are not equivalent:
seq.foldLeft(0)(_+_)
seq.reduceLeft(_+_)
The two expressions differ in how they handle the empty sequence: the fold produces a valid result (0), while the reduce throws an exception.
Myth: Pattern matching doesn't fit well with the OO paradigm.
Debunked here by Martin Odersky himself. (Also see this paper - Matching Objects with Patterns - by Odersky et al.)
Myth: this.type refers to the same type represented by this.getClass.
As an example of this misconception, one might assume that in the following code the type of v.me is B:
trait A { val me: this.type = this }
class B extends A
val v = new B
In reality, this.type refers to the type whose only instance is this. In general, x.type is the singleton type whose only instance is x. So in the example above, the type of v.me is v.type. The following session demonstrates the principle:
scala> val s = "a string"
s: java.lang.String = a string
scala> var v: s.type = s
v: s.type = a string
scala> v = "another string"
<console>:7: error: type mismatch;
found : java.lang.String("another string")
required: s.type
v = "another string"
Scala has type inference and refinement types (structural types), whereas Java does not.
The myth is busted by James Iry.
Myth: that Scala is highly scalable, without qualifying what forms of scalability.
Scala may indeed be highly scalable in terms of the ability to express higher-level denotational semantics, and this makes it a very good language for experimentation and even for scaling production at the project-level scale of top-down coordinated compositionality.
However, every referentially opaque language (i.e. allows mutable data structures), is imperative (and not declarative) and will not scale to WAN bottom-up, uncoordinated compositionality and security. In other words, imperative languages are compositional (and security) spaghetti w.r.t. uncoordinated development of modules. I realize such uncoordinated development is perhaps currently considered by most to be a "pipe dream" and thus perhaps not a high priority. And this is not to disparage the benefit to compositionality (i.e. eliminating corner cases) that higher-level semantic unification can provide, e.g. a category theory model for standard library.
There will possibly be significant cognitive dissonance for many readers, especially since there are popular misconceptions about imperative vs. declarative (i.e. mutable vs. immutable), (and eager vs. lazy,) e.g. the monadic semantic is never inherently imperative yet there is a lie that it is. Yes in Haskell the IO monad is imperative, but it being imperative has nothing to with it being a monad.
I explained this in more detail in the "Copute Tutorial" and "Purity" sections, which is either at the home page or temporarily at this link.
My point is I am very grateful Scala exists, but I want to clarify what Scala scales and what is does not. I need Scala for what it does well, i.e. for me it is the ideal platform to prototype a new declarative language, but Scala itself is not exclusively declarative and afaik referential transparency can't be enforced by the Scala compiler, other than remembering to use val everywhere.
I think my point applies to the complexity debate about Scala. I have found (so far and mostly conceptually, since so far limited in actual experience with my new language) that removing mutability and loops, while retaining diamond multiple inheritance subtyping (which Haskell doesn't have), radically simplifies the language. For example, the Unit fiction disappears, and afaics, a slew of other issues and constructs become unnecessary, e.g. non-category theory standard library, for comprehensions, etc..