A Measured value consists of (typically nonnegative) floating-point number and unit-of-measure. The point is to represent real-world quantities, and the rules that govern them. Here's an example:
scala> val oneinch = Measure(1.0, INCH)
oneinch : Measure[INCH] = Measure(1.0)
scala> val twoinch = Measure(2.0, INCH)
twoinch : Measure[INCH] = Measure(2.0)
scala> val onecm = Measure(1.0, CM)
onecm : Measure[CM] = Measure(1.0)
scala> oneinch + twoinch
res1: Measure[INCH] = Measure(3.0)
scala> oneinch + onecm
res2: Measure[INCH] = Measure(1.787401575)
scala> onecm * onecm
res3: Measure[CMSQ] = Measure(1.0)
scala> onecm * oneinch
res4: Measure[CMSQ] = Measure(2.54)
scala> oncem * Measure(1.0, LITER)
console>:7: error: conformance mismatch
scala> oneinch * 2 == twoinch
res5: Boolean = true
Before you get too excited, I haven't implemented this, I just dummied up a REPL session. I'm not even sure of the syntax, I just want to be able to handle things like adding Measured quantities (even with mixed units), multiplying Measured quantities, and so on, and ideally, I like Scala's vaunted type-system to guarantee at compile-time that expressions make sense.
My questions:
Is there extant terminology for this problem?
Has this already been done in Scala?
If not, how would I represent concepts like "length" and "length measured in meters"?
Has this been done in some other language?
A $330-million Mars probe was lost because the contractor was using yards and pounds and NASA was using meters and newtons. A Measure library would have prevented the crash.
F# has support for it, see for example this link for an introduction. There has been some work done in Scala on Units, for example here and here. There is a Scala compiler plugin as well, as described in this blog post. I briefly tried to install it, but using Scala 2.8.1, I got an exception when I started up the REPL, so I'm not sure whether this plugin is actively maintained at the moment.
Well, this functionality exists in Java, meaning you can use it directly in Scala.
jsr-275, which was moved to google code. jscience implements the spec. Here's a good introduction. If you want a better interface, I'd use this as a base and build a wrapper around it.
Your question is fully answered with one word. You can thank me later.
FRINK. http://futureboy.us/frinkdocs/
FYI, I have developed a Scalar class in Scala to represent physical units. I am currently using it for my R&D work in air traffic control, and it is working well for me. It does not check for unit consistency at compile time, but it checks at run time. I have a unique scheme for easily substituting it with basic numeric types for efficiency after the application is tested. You can find the code and the user guide at
http://russp.us/scalar-scala.htm
Here is the summary from the website:
Summary-- A Scala class was designed to represent physical scalars and to eliminate errors involving implicit physical units (e.g., confusing radians and degrees). The standard arithmetic operators are overloaded to provide syntax identical to that for basic numeric types. The Scalar class itself does not define any units but is part of a package that includes a complete implementation of the standard metric system of units and many common non-metric units. The scalar package also allows the user to define a specialized or reduced set of physical units for any particular application or domain. Once an application has been developed and tested, the Scalar class can be switched off at compile time to achieve the execution efficiency of operations on basic numeric types, which are an order of magnitude faster. The scalar class can also be used for discrete units to enforce type checking of integer counts, thereby enhancing the static type checking of Scala with additional dynamic type checking.
Let me clarify my previous post. I should have said, "These kinds of errors ["meter/yard conversion errors"] are automatically AVOIDED (not "handled") by simply using my Scalar class. All unit conversions are done automatically. That's the easy part.
The harder part is the checking for unit inconsistencies, such as adding a length to a velocity. This is where the issue of dynamic vs. static type checking comes up. I agree that static checking is generally preferable, but only if it can be done without sacrificing usability and convenience.
I have seen at least two "projects" for static checking of units, but I have never heard of anyone actually using them for real work. If someone knows of a case where they were used, please let me know. Until you use software for real work, you don't know what sorts of issues will come up.
As I wrote above, I am currently using my Scalar class (http://russp.us/scalar-scala.htm) for my R&D work in ATC. I've had to make many tweaks along the way for usability and convenience, but it is working well for me. I would be willing to consider a static units implementation if a proven one comes along, but for now I feel that I have essentially 99% of the value of such a thing. Hey, the vast majority of scientists and engineers just use "Doubles," so cut me some slack!
"Yeah, ATC software with run-time type checking? I can see headlines now: "Flight 34 Brought Down By Meter/Yard Conversion"."
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. ATC software is tested for years before it is deployed. That is enough time to catch unit inconsistency errors.
More importantly, meter/yard conversions are not even an issue here. These kinds of errors are automatically handled simply by using my Scalar class. For those kinds of errors, you need neither static nor dynamic checking. The issue of static vs. dynamic checking comes up only for unit inconsistencies, as in adding length to time. These kinds of errors are less common and are typically caught with dynamic checking on the first test run.
By the way, the interface here is terrible.
I have read that Scala's type system is weakened by Java interoperability and therefore cannot perform some of the same powers as Haskell's type system. Is this true? Is the weakness because of type erasure, or am I wrong in every way? Is this difference the reason that Scala has no typeclasses?
The big difference is that Scala doesn't have Hindley-Milner global type inference and instead uses a form of local type inference, requiring you to specify types for method parameters and the return type for overloaded or recursive functions.
This isn't driven by type erasure or by other requirements of the JVM. All possible difficulties here can be overcome, and have been, just consider Jaskell - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/JASKELL/Home
H-M inference doesn't work in an object-oriented context. Specifically, when type-polymorphism is used (as opposed to the ad-hoc polymorphism of type classes). This is crucial for strong interop with other Java libraries, and (to a lesser extent) to get the best possible optimisation from the JVM.
It's not really valid to state that either Haskell or Scala has a stronger type system, just that they are different. Both languages are pushing the boundaries for type-based programming in different directions, and each language has unique strengths that are hard to duplicate in the other.
Scala's type system is different from Haskell's, although Scala's concepts are sometimes directly inspired by Haskell's strengths and its knowledgeable community of researchers and professionals.
Of course, running on a VM not primarily intended for functional programming in the first place creates some compatibility concerns with existing languages targeting this platform.
Because most of the reasoning about types happens at compile time, the limitations of Java (as a language and as a platform) at runtime are nothing to be concerned about (except Type Erasure, although exactly this bug seems to make the integration into the Java ecosystem more seamless).
As far as I know the only "compromise" on the type system level with Java is a special syntax to handle Raw Types. While Scala doesn't even allow Raw Types anymore, it accepts older Java class files with that bug.
Maybe you have seen code like List[_] (or the longer equivalent List[T] forSome { type T }). This is a compatibility feature with Java, but is treated as an existential type internally too and doesn't weaken the type system.
Scala's type system does support type classes, although in a more verbose way than Haskell. I suggest reading this paper, which might create a different impression on the relative strength of Scala's type system (the table on page 17 serves as a nice list of very powerful type system concepts).
Not necessarily related to the power of the type system is the approach Scala's and Haskell's compilers use to infer types, although it has some impact on the way people write code.
Having a powerful type inference algorithm can make it worthwhile to write more abstract code (you can decide yourself if that is a good thing in all cases).
In the end Scala's and Haskell's type system are driven by the desire to provide their users with the best tools to solve their problems, but have taken different paths to that goal.
another interesting point to consider is that Scala directly supports the classical OO-style. Which means, there are subtype relations (e.g. List is a subclass of Seq). And this makes type inference more tricky. Add to this the fact that you can mix in traits in Scala, which means that a given type can have multiple supertype relations (making it yet more tricky)
Scala does not have rank-n types, although it may be possible to work around this limitation in certain cases.
I only have little experenice with Haskell, but the most obvious thing I note that Scala type system different from Haskell is the type inference.
In Scala, there is no global type inference, you must explicit tell the type of function arguments.
For example, in Scala you need to write this:
def add (x: Int, y: Int) = x + y
instead of
add x y = x + y
This may cause problem when you need generic version of add function that work with all kinds of type has the "+" method. There is a workaround for this, but it will get more verbose.
But in real use, I found Scala's type system is powerful enough for daily usage, and I almost never use those workaround for generic, maybe this is because I come from Java world.
And the limitation of explicit declare the type of arguments is not necessary a bad thing, you need document it anyway.
Well are they Turing reducible?
See Oleg Kiselyov's page http://okmij.org/ftp/
...
One can implement the lambda calculus in Haskell's type system. If Scala can do that, then in a sense Haskell's type system and Scala's type system compute the same types. The questions are: How natural is one over the other? How elegant is one over the other?
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.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I have just started to look at the Scala collections library re-implementation which is coming in the imminent 2.8 release. Those familiar with the library from 2.7 will notice that the library, from a usage perspective, has changed little. For example...
> List("Paris", "London").map(_.length)
res0: List[Int] List(5, 6)
...would work in either versions. The library is eminently useable: in fact it's fantastic. However, those previously unfamiliar with Scala and poking around to get a feel for the language now have to make sense of method signatures like:
def map[B, That](f: A => B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That]): That
For such simple functionality, this is a daunting signature and one which I find myself struggling to understand. Not that I think Scala was ever likely to be the next Java (or /C/C++/C#) - I don't believe its creators were aiming it at that market - but I think it is/was certainly feasible for Scala to become the next Ruby or Python (i.e. to gain a significant commercial user-base)
Is this going to put people off coming to Scala?
Is this going to give Scala a bad name in the commercial world as an academic plaything that only dedicated PhD students can understand? Are CTOs and heads of software going to get scared off?
Was the library re-design a sensible idea?
If you're using Scala commercially, are you worried about this? Are you planning to adopt 2.8 immediately or wait to see what happens?
Steve Yegge once attacked Scala (mistakenly in my opinion) for what he saw as its overcomplicated type-system. I worry that someone is going to have a field day spreading FUD with this API (similarly to how Josh Bloch scared the JCP out of adding closures to Java).
Note - I should be clear that, whilst I believe that Joshua Bloch was influential in the rejection of the BGGA closures proposal, I don't ascribe this to anything other than his honestly-held beliefs that the proposal represented a mistake.
Despite whatever my wife and coworkers keep telling me, I don't think I'm an idiot: I have a good degree in mathematics from the University of Oxford, and I've been programming commercially for almost 12 years and in Scala for about a year (also commercially).
Note the inflammatory subject title is a quotation made about the manifesto of a UK political party in the early 1980s. This question is subjective but it is a genuine question, I've made it CW and I'd like some opinions on the matter.
I hope it's not a "suicide note", but I can see your point. You hit on what is at the same time both a strength and a problem of Scala: its extensibility. This lets us implement most major functionality in libraries. In some other languages, sequences with something like map or collect would be built in, and nobody has to see all the hoops the compiler has to go through to make them work smoothly. In Scala, it's all in a library, and therefore out in the open.
In fact the functionality of map that's supported by its complicated type is pretty advanced. Consider this:
scala> import collection.immutable.BitSet
import collection.immutable.BitSet
scala> val bits = BitSet(1, 2, 3)
bits: scala.collection.immutable.BitSet = BitSet(1, 2, 3)
scala> val shifted = bits map { _ + 1 }
shifted: scala.collection.immutable.BitSet = BitSet(2, 3, 4)
scala> val displayed = bits map { _.toString + "!" }
displayed: scala.collection.immutable.Set[java.lang.String] = Set(1!, 2!, 3!)
See how you always get the best possible type? If you map Ints to Ints you get again a BitSet, but if you map Ints to Strings, you get a general Set. Both the static type and the runtime representation of map's result depend on the result type of the function that's passed to it. And this works even if the set is empty, so the function is never applied! As far as I know there is no other collection framework with an equivalent functionality. Yet from a user perspective this is how things are supposed to work.
The problem we have is that all the clever technology that makes this happen leaks into the type signatures which become large and scary. But maybe a user should not be shown by default the full type signature of map? How about if she looked up map in BitSet she got:
map(f: Int => Int): BitSet (click here for more general type)
The docs would not lie in that case, because from a user perspective indeed map has the type (Int => Int) => BitSet. But map also has a more general type which can be inspected by clicking on another link.
We have not yet implemented functionality like this in our tools. But I believe we need to do this, to avoid scaring people off and to give more useful info. With tools like that, hopefully smart frameworks and libraries will not become suicide notes.
I do not have a PhD, nor any other kind of degree neither in CS nor math nor indeed any other field. I have no prior experience with Scala nor any other similar language. I have no experience with even remotely comparable type systems. In fact, the only language that I have more than just a superficial knowledge of which even has a type system is Pascal, not exactly known for its sophisticated type system. (Although it does have range types, which AFAIK pretty much no other language has, but that isn't really relevant here.) The other three languages I know are BASIC, Smalltalk and Ruby, none of which even have a type system.
And yet, I have no trouble at all understanding the signature of the map function you posted. It looks to me like pretty much the same signature that map has in every other language I have ever seen. The difference is that this version is more generic. It looks more like a C++ STL thing than, say, Haskell. In particular, it abstracts away from the concrete collection type by only requiring that the argument is IterableLike, and also abstracts away from the concrete return type by only requiring that an implicit conversion function exists which can build something out of that collection of result values. Yes, that is quite complex, but it really is only an expression of the general paradigm of generic programming: do not assume anything that you don't actually have to.
In this case, map does not actually need the collection to be a list, or being ordered or being sortable or anything like that. The only thing that map cares about is that it can get access to all elements of the collection, one after the other, but in no particular order. And it does not need to know what the resulting collection is, it only needs to know how to build it. So, that is what its type signature requires.
So, instead of
map :: (a → b) → [a] → [b]
which is the traditional type signature for map, it is generalized to not require a concrete List but rather just an IterableLike data structure
map :: (IterableLike i, IterableLike j) ⇒ (a → b) → i → j
which is then further generalized by only requiring that a function exists that can convert the result to whatever data structure the user wants:
map :: IterableLike i ⇒ (a → b) → i → ([b] → c) → c
I admit that the syntax is a bit clunkier, but the semantics are the same. Basically, it starts from
def map[B](f: (A) ⇒ B): List[B]
which is the traditional signature for map. (Note how due to the object-oriented nature of Scala, the input list parameter vanishes, because it is now the implicit receiver parameter that every method in a single-dispatch OO system has.) Then it generalized from a concrete List to a more general IterableLike
def map[B](f: (A) ⇒ B): IterableLike[B]
Now, it replaces the IterableLike result collection with a function that produces, well, really just about anything.
def map[B, That](f: A ⇒ B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That]): That
Which I really believe is not that hard to understand. There's really only a couple of intellectual tools you need:
You need to know (roughly) what map is. If you gave only the type signature without the name of the method, I admit, it would be a lot harder to figure out what is going on. But since you already know what map is supposed to do, and you know what its type signature is supposed to be, you can quickly scan the signature and focus on the anomalies, like "why does this map take two functions as arguments, not one?"
You need to be able to actually read the type signature. But even if you have never seen Scala before, this should be quite easy, since it really is just a mixture of type syntaxes you already know from other languages: VB.NET uses square brackets for parametric polymorphism, and using an arrow to denote the return type and a colon to separate name and type, is actually the norm.
You need to know roughly what generic programming is about. (Which isn't that hard to figure out, since it's basically all spelled out in the name: it's literally just programming in a generic fashion).
None of these three should give any professional or even hobbyist programmer a serious headache. map has been a standard function in pretty much every language designed in the last 50 years, the fact that different languages have different syntax should be obvious to anyone who has designed a website with HTML and CSS and you can't subscribe to an even remotely programming related mailinglist without some annoying C++ fanboy from the church of St. Stepanov explaining the virtues of generic programming.
Yes, Scala is complex. Yes, Scala has one of the most sophisticated type systems known to man, rivaling and even surpassing languages like Haskell, Miranda, Clean or Cyclone. But if complexity were an argument against success of a programming language, C++ would have died long ago and we would all be writing Scheme. There are lots of reasons why Scala will very likely not be successful, but the fact that programmers can't be bothered to turn on their brains before sitting down in front of the keyboard is probably not going to be the main one.
Same thing in C++:
template <template <class, class> class C,
class T,
class A,
class T_return,
class T_arg
>
C<T_return, typename A::rebind<T_return>::other>
map(C<T, A> &c,T_return(*func)(T_arg) )
{
C<T_return, typename A::rebind<T_return>::other> res;
for ( C<T,A>::iterator it=c.begin() ; it != c.end(); it++ ){
res.push_back(func(*it));
}
return res;
}
Well, I can understand your pain, but, quite frankly, people like you and I -- or pretty much any regular Stack Overflow user -- are not the rule.
What I mean by that is that... most programmers won't care about that type signature, because they'll never see them! They don't read documentation.
As long as they saw some example of how the code works, and the code doesn't fail them in producing the result they expect, they won't ever look at the documentation. When that fails, they'll look at the documentation and expect to see usage examples at the top.
With these things in mind, I think that:
Anyone (as in, most people) who ever comes across that type signature will mock Scala to no end if they are pre-disposed against it, and will consider it a symbol of Scala's power if they like Scala.
If the documentation isn't enhanced to provide usage examples and explain clearly what a method is for and how to use it, it can detract from Scala adoption a bit.
In the long run, it won't matter. That Scala can do stuff like that will make libraries written for Scala much more powerful and safer to use. These libraries and frameworks will attract programmers atracted to powerful tools.
Programmers who like simplicity and directness will continue to use PHP, or similar languages.
Alas, Java programmers are much into power tools, so, in answering that, I have just revised my expectation of mainstream Scala adoption. I have no doubt at all that Scala will become a mainstream language. Not C-mainstream, but perhaps Perl-mainstream or PHP-mainstream.
Speaking of Java, did you ever replace the class loader? Have you ever looked into what that involves? Java can be scary, if you look at the places framework writers do. It's just that most people don't. The same thing applies to Scala, IMHO, but early adopters have a tendency to look under each rock they encounter, to see if there's something hiding there.
Is this going to put people off coming to Scala?
Yes, but it will also prevent people from being put off. I've considered the lack of collections that use higher-kinded types to be a major weakness ever since Scala gained support for higher-kinded types. It make the API docs more complicated, but it really makes usage more natural.
Is this going to give scala a bad name in the commercial world as an academic plaything that only dedicated PhD students can understand? Are CTOs and heads of software going to get scared off?
Some probably will. I don't think Scala is accessible to many "professional" developers, partially due to the complexity of Scala and partly due to the unwillingness of many developers to learn. The CTOs who employ such developers will rightly be scared off.
Was the library re-design a sensible idea?
Absolutely. It makes collections fit much better with the rest of the language and the type system, even if it still has some rough edges.
If you're using scala commercially, are you worried about this? Are you planning to adopt 2.8 immediately or wait to see what happens?
I'm not using it commercially. I'll probably wait until at least a couple revs into the 2.8.x series before even trying to introduce it so that the bugs can be flushed out. I'll also wait to see how much success EPFL has in improving its development a release processes. What I'm seeing looks hopeful, but I work for a conservative company.
One the more general topic of "is Scala too complicated for mainstream developers?"...
Most developers, mainstream or otherwise, are maintaining or extending existing systems. This means that most of what they use is dictated by decisions made long ago. There are still plenty of people writing COBOL.
Tomorrow's mainstream developer will work maintaining and extending the applications that are being built today. Many of these applications are not being built by mainstream developers. Tomorrow's mainstream developers will use the language that is being used by today's most successful developers of new applications.
One way that the Scala community can help ease the fear of programmers new to Scala is to focus on practice and to teach by example--a lot of examples that start small and grow gradually larger. Here are a few sites that take this approach:
Daily Scala
Learning Scala in small bites
Simply Scala
After spending some time on these sites, one quickly realizes that Scala and its libraries, though perhaps difficult to design and implement, are not so difficult to use, especially in the common cases.
I have an undergraduate degree from a cheap "mass market" US university, so I'd say I fall into the middle of the user intelligence (or at least education) scale :) I've been dabbling with Scala for just a few months and have worked on two or three non-trivial apps.
Especially now that IntelliJ has released their fine IDE with what IMHO is currently the best Scala plugin, Scala development is relatively painless:
I find I can use Scala as a "Java without semicolons," i.e. I write similar-looking code to what I'd do in Java, and benefit a little from syntactic brevity such as that gained by type inference. Exception handling, when I do it at all, is more convenient. Class definition is much less verbose without the getter/setter boilerplate.
Once in a while I manage to write a single line to accomplish the equivalent of multiple lines of Java. Where applicable, chains of functional methods like map, fold, collect, filter etc. are fun to compose and elegant to behold.
Only rarely do I find myself benefitting from Scala's more high-powered features: Closures and partial (or curried) functions, pattern matching... that kinda thing.
As a newbie, I continue to struggle with the terse and idiomatic syntax. Method calls without parameters don't need parentheses except where they do; cases in the match statement need a fat arrow ( => ), but there are also places where you need a thin arrow ( -> ). Many methods have short but rather cryptic names like /: or \: - I can get my stuff done if I flip enough manual pages, but some of my code ends up looking like Perl or line noise. Ironically, one of the most popular bits of syntactic shorthand is missing in action: I keep getting bitten by the fact that Int doesn't define a ++ method.
This is just my opinion: I feel like Scala has the power of C++ combined with the complexity and readability of C++. The syntactic complexity of the language also makes the API documentation hard to read.
Scala is very well thought out and brilliant in many respects. I suspect many an academic would love to program in it. However, it's also full of cleverness and gotchas, it has a much higher learning curve than Java and is harder to read. If I scan the fora and see how many developers are still struggling with the finer points of Java, I cannot conceive of Scala ever becoming a mainstream language. No company will be able to justify sending its developers on a 3 week Scala course when formerly they only needed a 1 week Java course.
I think primary problem with that method is that the (implicit bf : CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That]) goes without any explanation. Even though I know what implicit arguments are there's nothing indicating how this affects the call. Chasing through the scaladoc only leaves me more confused (few of the classes related to CanBuildFrom even have documentation).
I think a simple "there must be an implicit object in scope for bf that provides a builder for objects of type B into the return type That" would help somewhat, but it's kind of a heady concept when all you really want to do is map A's to B's. In fact, I'm not sure that's right, because I don't know what the type Repr means, and the documentation for Traversable certainly gives no clue at all.
So, I'm left with two options, neither of them pleasant:
Assume it will just work how the old map works and how map works in most other languages
Dig into the source code some more
I get that Scala is essentially exposing the guts of how these things work and that ultimately this is provide a way to do what oxbow_lakes is describing. But it's a distraction in the signature.
I'm a Scala beginner and I honestly don't see a problem with that type signature. The parameter is the function to map and the implicit parameter the builder to return the correct collection. Clear and readable.
The whole thing's quite elegant, actually. The builder type parameters let the compiler choose the correct return type while the implicit parameter mechanism hides this extra parameter from the class user. I tried this:
Map(1 -> "a", 2 -> "b").map((t) => (t._2) -> (t._1)) // returns Map("a" -> 1, "b" -> 2)
Map(1 -> "a", 2 -> "b").map((t) => t._2) // returns List("a", "b")
That's polymorphism done right.
Now, granted, it's not a mainstream paradigm and it will scare away many. But, it will also attract many who value its expressiveness and elegance.
Unfortunately the signature for map that you gave is an incorrect one for map and there is indeed legitimate criticism.
The first criticism is that by subverting the signature for map, we have something that is more general. It is a common error to believe that this is a virtue by default. It isn't. The map function is very well defined as a covariant functor Fx -> (x -> y) -> Fy with adherence to the two laws of composition and identity. Anything else attributed to "map" is a travesty.
The given signature is something else, but it is not map. What I suspect it is trying to be is a specialised and slightly altered version of the "traverse" signature from the paper, The Essence of the Iterator Pattern. Here is its signature:
traverse :: (Traversable t, Applicative f) => (a -> f b) -> t a -> f (t b)
I shall convert it to Scala:
def traverse[A, B](f: A => F[B], a: T[A])(implicit t: Traversable[T], ap: Applicative[F]): F[T[B]
Of course it fails -- it is not general enough! Also, it is slightly different (note that you can get map by running traverse through the Identity functor). However, I suspect that if the library writers were more aware of library generalisations that are well documented (Applicative Programming with Effects precedes the aforementioned), then we wouldn't see this error.
Second, the map function is a special-case in Scala because of its use in for-comprehensions. This unfortunately means that a library designer who is better equipped cannot ignore this error without also sacrificing the syntactic sugar of comprehensions. In other words, if the Scala library designers were to destroy a method, then this is easily ignored, but please not map!
I hope someone speaks up about it, because as it is, it will become harder to workaround the errors that Scala insists on making, apparently for reasons that I have strong objections to. That is, the solution to "the irresponsible objections from the average programmer (i.e. too hard!)" is not "appease them to make it easier for them" but instead, provide pointers and assistance to become better programmers. Myself and Scala's objectives are in contention on this issue, but back to your point.
You were probably making your point, predicting specific responses from "the average programmer." That is, the people who will claim "but it is too complicated!" or some such. These are the Yegges or Blochs that you refer to. My response to these people of the anti-intellectualism/pragmatism movement is quite harsh and I'm already anticipating a barrage of responses, so I will omit it.
I truly hope the Scala libraries improve, or at least, the errors can be safely tucked away in a corner. Java is a language where "trying to do anything useful" is so incredibly costly, that it is often not worth it because the overwhelming amount of errors simply cannot be avoided. I implore Scala to not go down the same path.
I totally agree with both the question and Martin's answer :). Even in Java, reading javadoc with generics is much harder than it should be due to the extra noise. This is compounded in Scala where implicit parameters are used as in the questions's example code (while the implicits do very useful collection-morphing stuff).
I don't think its a problem with the language per se - I think its more a tooling issue. And while I agree with what Jörg W Mittag says, I think looking at scaladoc (or the documentation of a type in your IDE) - it should require as little brain power as possible to grok what a method is, what it takes and returns. There shouldn't be a need to hack up a bit of algebra on a bit of paper to get it :)
For sure IDEs need a nice way to show all the methods for any variable/expression/type (which as with Martin's example can have all the generics inlined so its nice and easy to grok). I like Martin's idea of hiding the implicits by default too.
To take the example in scaladoc...
def map[B, That](f: A => B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That]): That
When looking at this in scaladoc I'd like the generic block [B, That] to be hidden by default as well as the implicit parameter (maybe they show if you hover a little icon with the mouse) - as its extra stuff to grok reading it which usually isn't that relevant. e.g. imagine if this looked like...
def map(f: A => B): That
nice and clear and obvious what it does. You might wonder what 'That' is, if you mouse over or click it it could expand the [B, That] text highlighting the 'That' for example.
Maybe a little icon could be used for the [] declaration and (implicit...) block so its clear there are little bits of the statement collapsed? Its hard to use a token for it, but I'll use a . for now...
def map.(f: A => B).: That
So by default the 'noise' of the type system is hidden from the main 80% of what folks need to look at - the method name, its parameter types and its return type in nice simple concise way - with little expandable links to the detail if you really care that much.
Mostly folks are reading scaladoc to find out what methods they can call on a type and what parameters they can pass. We're kinda overloading users with way too much detail right how IMHO.
Here's another example...
def orElse[A1 <: A, B1 >: B](that: PartialFunction[A1, B1]): PartialFunction[A1, B1]
Now if we hid the generics declaration its easier to read
def orElse(that: PartialFunction[A1, B1]): PartialFunction[A1, B1]
Then if folks hover over, say, A1 we could show the declaration of A1 being A1 <: A. Covariant and contravariant types in generics add lots of noise too which can be rendered in a much easier to grok way to users I think.
I don't know how to break it to you, but I have a PhD from Cambridge, and I'm using 2.8 just fine.
More seriously, I hardly spent any time with 2.7 (it won't inter-op with a Java library I am using) and started using Scala just over a month ago. I have some experience with Haskell (not much), but just ignored the stuff you're worried about and looked for methods that matched my experience with Java (which I use for a living).
So: I am a "new user" and I wasn't put off - the fact that it works like Java gave me enough confidence to ignore the bits I didn't understand.
(However, the reason I was looking at Scala was partly to see whether to push it at work, and I am not going to do so yet. Making the documentation less intimidating would certainly help, but what surprised me is how much it is still changing and being developed (to be fair what surprised me most was how awesome it is, but the changes came a close second). So I guess what I am saying is that I'd rather prefer the limited resources were put into getting it into a final state - I don't think they were expecting to be this popular this soon.)
Don't know Scala at all, however a few weeks ago I could not read Clojure. Now I can read most of it, but can not write anything yet beyond the most simplistic examples. I suspect Scala is no different. You need a good book or course depending on how you learn. Just reading the map declaration above, I got maybe 1/3 of it.
I believe the bigger problems are not the syntax of these languages, but adopting and internalizing the paradigms that make them usable in everyday production code. For me Java was not a huge leap from C++, which was not a huge leap from C, which was not a leap at all from Pascal, nor Basic etc... But coding in a functional language like Clojure is a huge leap (for me anyway). I guess in Scala you can code in Java style or Scala style. But in Clojure you will create quite the mess trying to keep your imperative habits from Java.
Scala has a lot of crazy features (particularly where implicit parameters are concerned) that look very complicated and academic, but are designed to make things easy to use. The most useful ones get syntactic sugar (like [A <% B] which means that an object of type A has an implicit conversion to an object of type B) and a well-documented explanation of what they do. But most of the time, as a client of these libraries you can ignore the implicit parameters and trust them to do the right thing.
Is this going to put people off coming to Scala?
I don't think it is the main factor that will affect how popular Scala will become, because Scala has a lot of power and its syntax is not as foreign to a Java/C++/PHP programmer as Haskell, OCaml, SML, Lisps, etc..
But I do think Scala's popularity will plateau at less than where Java is today, because I also think the next mainstream language must be much simplified, and the only way I see to get there is pure immutability, i.e. declarative like HTML, but Turing complete. However, I am biased because I am developing such a language, but I only did so after ruling out over a several month study that Scala could not suffice for what I needed.
Is this going to give Scala a bad name in the commercial world as an academic plaything that only dedicated PhD students can understand? Are CTOs and heads of software going to get scared off?
I don't think Scala's reputation will suffer from the Haskell complex. But I think that some will put off learning it, because for most programmers, I don't yet see a use case that forces them to use Scala, and they will procrastinate learning about it. Perhaps the highly-scalable server side is the most compelling use case.
And, for the mainstream market, first learning Scala is not a "breath of fresh air", where one is writing programs immediately, such as first using HTML or Python. Scala tends to grow on you, after one learns all the details that one stumbles on from the start. However, maybe if I had read Programming in Scala from the start, my experience and opinion of the learning curve would have been different.
Was the library re-design a sensible idea?
Definitely.
If you're using Scala commercially, are you worried about this? Are you planning to adopt 2.8 immediately or wait to see what happens?
I am using Scala as the initial platform of my new language. I probably wouldn't be building code on Scala's collection library if I was using Scala commercially otherwise. I would create my own category theory based library, since the one time I looked, I found Scalaz's type signatures even more verbose and unwieldy than Scala's collection library. Part of that problem perhaps is Scala's way of implementing type classes, and that is a minor reason I am creating my own language.
I decided to write this answer, because I wanted to force myself to research and compare Scala's collection class design to the one I am doing for my language. Might as well share my thought process.
The 2.8 Scala collections use of a builder abstraction is a sound design principle. I want to explore two design tradeoffs below.
WRITE-ONLY CODE: After writing this section, I read Carl Smotricz's comment which agrees with what I expect to be the tradeoff. James Strachan and davetron5000's comments concur that the meaning of That (it is not even That[B]) and the mechanism of the implicit is not easy to grasp intuitively. See my use of monoid in issue #2 below, which I think is much more explicit. Derek Mahar's comment is about writing Scala, but what about reading the Scala of others that is not "in the common cases".
One criticism I have read about Scala, is that it is easier to write it, than read the code that others have written. And I find this to be occasionally true for various reasons (e.g. many ways to write a function, automatic closures, Unit for DSLs, etc), but I am undecided if this is major factor. Here the use of implicit function parameters has pluses and minuses. On the plus side, it reduces verbosity and automates selection of the builder object. In Odersky's example the conversion from a BitSet, i.e. Set[Int], to a Set[String] is implicit. The unfamiliar reader of the code might not readily know what the type of collection is, unless they can reason well about the all the potential invisible implicit builder candidates which might exist in the current package scope. Of course, the experienced programmer and the writer of the code will know that BitSet is limited to Int, thus a map to String has to convert to a different collection type. But which collection type? It isn't specified explicitly.
AD-HOC COLLECTION DESIGN: After writing this section, I read Tony Morris's comment and realized I am making nearly the same point. Perhaps my more verbose exposition will make the point more clear.
In "Fighting Bit Rot with Types" Odersky & Moors, two use cases are presented. They are the restriction of BitSet to Int elements, and Map to pair tuple elements, and are provided as the reason that the general element mapping function, A => B, must be able to build alternative destination collection types. However, afaik this is flawed from a category theory perspective. To be consistent in category theory and thus avoid corner cases, these collection types are functors, in which each morphism, A => B, must map between objects in the same functor category, List[A] => List[B], BitSet[A] => BitSet[B]. For example, an Option is a functor that can be viewed as a collection of sets of one Some( object ) and the None. There is no general map from Option's None, or List's Nil, to other functors which don't have an "empty" state.
There is a tradeoff design choice made here. In the design for collections library of my new language, I chose to make everything a functor, which means if I implement a BitSet, it needs to support all element types, by using a non-bit field internal representation when presented with a non-integer type parameter, and that functionality is already in the Set which it inherits from in Scala. And Map in my design needs to map only its values, and it can provide a separate non-functor method for mapping its (key,value) pair tuples. One advantage is that each functor is then usually also an applicative and perhaps a monad too. Thus all functions between element types, e.g. A => B => C => D => ..., are automatically lifted to the functions between lifted applicative types, e.g. List[A] => List[B] => List[C] => List[D] => .... For mapping from a functor to another collection class, I offer a map overload which takes a monoid, e.g. Nil, None, 0, "", Array(), etc.. So the builder abstraction function is the append method of a monoid and is supplied explicitly as a necessary input parameter, thus with no invisible implicit conversions. (Tangent: this input parameter also enables appending to non-empty monoids, which Scala's map design can't do.) Such conversions are a map and a fold in the same iteration pass. Also I provide a traversable, in the category sense, "Applicative programming with effects" McBride & Patterson, which also enables map + fold in a single iteration pass from any traversable to any applicative, where most every collection class is both. Also the state monad is an applicative and thus is a fully generalized builder abstraction from any traversable.
So afaics the Scala collections is "ad-hoc" in the sense that it is not grounded in category theory, and category theory is the essense of higher-level denotational semantics. Although Scala's implicit builders are at first appearance "more generalized" than a functor model + monoid builder + traversable -> applicative, they are afaik not proven to be consistent with any category, and thus we don't know what rules they follow in the most general sense and what the corner cases will be given they may not obey any category model. It is simply not true that adding more variables makes something more general, and this was one of huge benefits of category theory is it provides rules by which to maintain generality while lifting to higher-level semantics. A collection is a category.
I read somewhere, I think it was Odersky, as another justification for the library design, is that programming in a pure functional style has the cost of limited recursion and speed where tail recursion isn't used. I haven't found it difficult to employ tail recursion in every case that I have encountered so far.
Additionally I am carrying in my mind an incomplete idea that some of Scala's tradeoffs are due to trying to be both an mutable and immutable language, unlike for example Haskell or the language I am developing. This concurs with Tony Morris's comment about for comprehensions. In my language, there are no loops and no mutable constructs. My language will sit on top of Scala (for now) and owes much to it, and this wouldn't be possible if Scala didn't have the general type system and mutability. That might not be true though, because I think Odersky & Moors ("Fighting Bit Rot with Types") are incorrect to state that Scala is the only OOP language with higher-kinds, because I verified (myself and via Bob Harper) that Standard ML has them. Also appears SML's type system may be equivalently flexible (since 1980s), which may not be readily appreciated because the syntax is not so much similar to Java (and C++/PHP) as Scala. In any case, this isn't a criticism of Scala, but rather an attempt to present an incomplete analysis of tradeoffs, which is I hope germane to the question. Scala and SML don't suffer from Haskell's inability to do diamond multiple inheritance, which is critical and I understand is why so many functions in the Haskell Prelude are repeated for different types.
It seems necessary to state ones degree here: B.A. in Political Science and B.ed in Computer Science.
To the point:
Is this going to put people off coming to Scala?
Scala is difficult, because its underlying programming paradigm is difficult. Functional programming scares a lot of people. It is possible to build closures in PHP but people rarely do. So no, not this signature but all the rest will put people off, if they do not have the specific education to make them value the power of the underlying paradigm.
If this education is available, everyone can do it. Last year I build a chess computer with a bunch of school kids in SCALA! They had their problems but they did fine in the end.
If you're using Scala commercially, are you worried about this? Are you planning to adopt 2.8 immediately or wait to see what happens?
I would not be worried.
I have a maths degree from Oxford too! It took me a while to 'get' the new collections stuff. But I like it a lot now that I do. In fact, the typing of 'map' was one of the first big things that bugged me in 2.7 (perhaps since the first thing I did was subclass one of the collection classes).
Reading Martin's paper on the new 2.8 collections really helped explain the use of implicits, but yes the documentation itself definitely needs to do a better job of explaining the role of different kind of implicits within method signatures of core APIs.
My main concern is more this: when is 2.8 going to be released? When will the bug reports stop coming in for it? have scala team bitten off more than they can chew with 2.8 / tried to change too much at once?
I'd really like to see 2.8 stabilised for release as a priority before adding anything else new at all, and wonder (while watching from the sidelines) if some improvements could be made to the way the development roadmap for the scala compiler is managed.
What about error messages in use site?
And what about when comes the use case one needs to integrate existing types with a custom one that fits a DSL. One have to be well educated on matters of association, precedence, implicit conversions, implicit parameters, higher kinds, and maybe existential types.
It's very good to know that mostly it's simple but it's not necessarily enough. At least there must be one guy who knows this stuff if widespread library is to be designed.