Related
I'm using ScalaJS with Play. Many of the models I'd like to use on both JS and JVM platforms involve dates and times. Given the lack of a cross-platform date/time library, how are people approaching this?
Things I know about:
scalajs-java-time project (https://github.com/scala-js/scala-js-java-time) to port JDK8's java.time api to Scala.js. Unfortunately, it's far from complete and judging by the commit logs, seems to have stalled.
https://github.com/mdedetrich/soda-time is a port of JodaTime to Scala/Scala.js. But it's not ready for production use.
An old post at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scala-js/6JoJ7x-VxLA suggests storing milliseconds in shared code and then doing implicit conversions on each platform to either js.Date or JodaTime. But we really need a common interface, which this doesn't give.
Li Haoyi's excellent "Hands-on Scala.js" has a simple cross-platform library (http://www.lihaoyi.com/hands-on-scala-js/#ASimpleCross-BuiltLibrary) that could, in theory, be extended to come up with an API in /shared that delegates to JodaTime on the jvm and Momento on js -- but that sounds like a lot of work.
(added later) https://github.com/soc/scala-java-time is based on an implementation of java-time that was contributed to OpenJDK. The README claims that most stuff is working. Right now, this looks like the most promising approach for my needs.
Any advice from those who have gone before me? Right now the fourth options seems like my best bet (with the API limited to stuff I actually use). I'm hoping for something better.
I was in the same boat as you, and the best solution I came up with was cquiroz's scala-java-time library. From reading the comments to your question above, it appears you landed at the same place eventually!
I came here from a google search, and given how much better this solution is than the alternatives you mentions above, let's consider marking this question as resolved for future visitors.
I learn best by taking apart something that already does something and figuring out why decisions were made in which manner.
Recently I've started working with Perl's CGI::Application framework, but found i don't really get along well with the documentation (too little information on how to best structure an application with it). There are some examples of small applications on the cgi-app website, but they're mostly structured such that they demonstrate a small feature, but contain mostly of code that one would never actually use in production. Other examples are massively huge and would require way too much time to dig through. And most of them are just stuff that runs on cgiapp, but isn't open source.
As such I am looking for something that has most base functionality like user logins, db access, some processing, etc.; is actually used for something but not so big that it would take hours to even set them up.
Does something like that exist or am i out of luck?
CGI::Application tends to be used for small, rapid-development web applications (much like Dancer, Maypole and other related modules). I haven't seen any real examples of open-source web apps built on top of it, though perhaps I'm not looking hard enough.
You could look at Catalyst. The wiki has a list of Catalyst-powered software and there are a large number of apps there - poke around, see if you like the look of the framework. Of this, this is Perl, so some of those apps will be using Template::Toolkit, some will use HTML::Mason... still, you'll get a general idea.
Try looking at Miril CMS. Although I don't know in which state it is.
I am the same with code, and had the same request. When I did not find a solution I created my own. which is https://github.com/alexxroche/Notice
I hope that it is a good solution to this request.
Notice demonstrates:
CGI::Application
CGI::Application::Plugin::ConfigAuto
CGI::Application::Plugin::AutoRunmode
CGI::Application::Plugin::DBH
CGI::Application::Plugin::Session;
CGI::Application::Plugin::Authentication
CGI::Application::Plugin::Redirect
CGI::Application::Plugin::DBIC::Schema
CGI::Application::Plugin::Forward
CGI::Application::Plugin::TT
It comes with an example mysql schema, but because of DBIC::Schema it can be used with PostgreSQL, (or anything else that DBIx::Class supports.)
I use Notice in all of my real life applications since 2007. The version in github is everything except the branding and the content.
Check out the Krang CMS.
I like C# 3.0 features especially lambda expressions, auto implemented properties or in suitable cases also implicitly typed local variables (var keyword), but when my boss revealed that I am using them, he asked me not to use any C# 3.0 features in work. I was told that these features are not standard and confusing for most developers and its usefulness is doubtful. I was restricted to use only C# 2.0 features and he is also considering forbidding anonymous methods.
Since we are targeting .NET Framework 3.5, I cannot see any reason for these restrictions. In my opinion, maybe the only disadvantage is that my few co-workers and the boss (also a programmer) would have to learn some basics of C# 3.0 which should not be difficult. What do you think about it? Is my boss right and am I missing something? Are there any good reasons for such a restriction in a development company where C# is a main programming language?
I have had a similar experience (asked not to use Generics, because the may be confusing to my colleagues).
The fact is, that we now use generics and non of my colleagues are having a problem with them. They may not have grasped how to create generic classes, but they sure do understand how to use them.
My opinion on that is that any developer can learn how to use these language features. They may seem advanced at first but as people get used to them the shock of newness lessens.
The main argument for using these features (or any new language features) is that this is a simple and easy way to help my colleagues advance their skills, rather than stagnating.
As for your particular problem - not using lambdas. Lots of the updates to the BCL have overloads that take delegates as parameters - these are in many cases most easily expressed as lambdas, not using them this way is ignoring some of the new and updated uses of the BCL.
In regards to the issues with your peers not being able to learn lambdas - I found that Jon Skeets C# in depth deals with how they evolved from delegates in a manner that was easy to follow and real eye opener. I would recommend you get a copy for your boss and colleagues.
You boss is going to need to understand that language (and other) improvements are designed to give developers more capabilities, and make them more efficient in completing the task at hand, and that if he is not going to allow them for unknown reasons then:
The development team isn't producing at its greatest potential.
The company isn't benefiting from increased efficiency/productivity.
like others have said developers aren't worth their salt if they can't keep up with some of the latest improvements in the language that they are using on a daily basis. I suspect your boss hasn't done much coding lately and it is his inability to understand the latest language improvements that has motivated this decision.
I was told that these features are not standard and confusing for most developers and its usefulness is doubtful. I was restricted to use only C# 2.0 features and he is also considering forbidding anonymous methods.
Presumably roughly translates to your boss meaning...
These features are confusing for me, and I don't find them useful because I don't understand them.
Which is fairly symptomatic of the Blub paradox (well, or just sheer laziness). Either way there's no merit in what he's saying, and you should start looking for another job if he continues down that road.
If the project is strictly C# 3+ from now on, then you would not break the build by including these items. However, before using them you should be aware of the following:
You can't use them if the project lead gets to make the decision and votes no.
Other than that, you should use them where it makes the code significantly easier to maintain.
You should not use them in ways that are confusing, or unnecessary in the sense that they do not significantly improve the maintainability of the code. This does mean you should not use them where the code is effectively the same or barely improved.
If Microsoft didn't define the standard and these were features that they added to a non-Microsoft language, I would say your boss might have a point. However, since Microsoft defines the language and uses these very features in implementing significant parts of .NET 3.5 (and 4.0), I'd say that you'd be foolish to ignore them. You may not choose to use some of them -- var, for instance, may not be acceptable in all environments due to coding standards -- but a blanket policy of avoiding new features seems unreasonable.
The trickier bit is when should you start using new features, because they can be confusing and may delay development. In general, I choose to use new language features and platform elements on new projects. I often avoid using them on projects that are currently in development when the feature/framework enhancement comes out, deferring until the next project. On a long project, I might introduce them at a significant milestone if the amount of rearchitecting is small or the feature is worth the changes. Normally, I'd wait until the project is due for significant changes anyway and then evaluate if refactoring to newer features is warranted.
The jury is still out on the long term consequences of some features, but if their main rationale is 'it is confusing to other developers' or something similar than I would be concerned about the quality of the talent.
I like C# 3.0 features especially
lambda expressions, auto implemented
properties or in suitable cases also
implicitly typed local variables (var
keyword), but when my boss revealed
that I am using them, he asked me not
to use any C# 3.0 features in work. I
was told that these features are not
standard and confusing for most
developers and its usefulness is
doubtful.
He's got a point.
Following that line of thought, let's make a rule against generic collections since List<T> doesn't make any sense (angle brackets? wtf?).
While we're at it, let's eliminate all interfaces (when are you ever gonna need a class without any implementation?).
Hell, let's go ahead eliminate inheritance since its so tricky these days (is-a? has-a? can't we all just be friends?).
And use of recursion is grounds for dismissal (Foo() invokes Foo()? Surely you must be joking!).
Errrm... back to reality.
Its not that C# 3.0 features are confusion to programmers, its that the features are confusing to your boss. He's familiar with one technology and stubbornly refuses to part with it. You're about to enter the Twilight Zone Blub Paradox:
Programmers get very attached to their
favorite languages, and I don't want
to hurt anyone's feelings, so to
explain this point I'm going to use a
hypothetical language called Blub.
Blub falls right in the middle of the
abstractness continuum. It is not the
most powerful language, but it is more
powerful than Cobol or machine
language.
And in fact, our hypothetical Blub
programmer wouldn't use either of
them. Of course he wouldn't program in
machine language. That's what
compilers are for. And as for Cobol,
he doesn't know how anyone can get
anything done with it. It doesn't even
have x (Blub feature of your choice).
As long as our hypothetical Blub
programmer is looking down the power
continuum, he knows he's looking down.
Languages less powerful than Blub are
obviously less powerful, because
they're missing some feature he's used
to. But when our hypothetical Blub
programmer looks in the other
direction, up the power continuum, he
doesn't realize he's looking up. What
he sees are merely weird languages. He
probably considers them about
equivalent in power to Blub, but with
all this other hairy stuff thrown in
as well. Blub is good enough for him,
because he thinks in Blub.
When we switch to the point of view of
a programmer using any of the
languages higher up the power
continuum, however, we find that he in
turn looks down upon Blub. How can you
get anything done in Blub? It doesn't
even have y.
C# 3.0 isn't hard. Sure you can abuse it, but it isn't hard or confusing to any programmer with more than week of C# 3.0 experience. Your boss's skills have just fallen behind and he wants to bring the rest of the team down to his level. DON'T LET HIM!
Continue using anonymous funcs, the var keyword, auto-properties, and what have you to your hearts content. You won't lose your job over it. If he gets pissy about it, laugh it off.
Like it or not, if you plan on using LINQ in any situation, you're going to have to utilize some of the C# 3.0 language specs.
Your boss is going to have to warm up to them if he wants to utilize the feature sets you get from 3.5, which are numerous and worth your time investing in.
Also, from my experience in leading teams, I've found that using the 3.0 specs actually has helped devs readability and understanding of the code base. There's about a weeks worth of time that is spent by the dev trying to understand what the syntax means, but once they get it they much prefer the new way over the old way.
Perhaps you can do a presentation once a week on each feature to everyone and get some of the developers on your side to help convince management of the benefits.
I recently moved from a bleeding edge C# house to a C# house that was running mostly on dot.Net 1.1 and some 2.0 projects, using mostly only 1.1 features. Luckily management stay away from the code. Most of the developers love all the new features in the newer frameworks, they just don't have the time or inclination to figure them out by themselves. Once I managed to show them how they can make their own lives easier they started using them by themselves and we have migrated several projects to gain the new language features and better tool advantages.
Some people are just afraid of change, because maybe you'll make them all look stupid using fancy new technologies. Could also be that your boss doesn't want the team learning new things instead of getting work done the old fasioned way.
The var keyword can certainly be abused, but in most cases reduces redundant code. LINQ is the main thing you want from .Net 3.5 because of the huge time saving in the amount of code you have to write. Your boss should be encouraging you to use it. Also the base class libraries now take delegates are parameters, so you will be limiting yourself a lot by not using them. Lambda's are just some fancy syntactic sugar to make delegates cleaner.
I would refer you to Effectively Integrating into Software Development Teams and Leading by Example. Two really great articles on how to deal with teams that are afraid of change.
I've been asked to run a workshop and coding dojo soon for people to try out Scala and try to build something with it. The attendees are all going to be new to Scala, and could come from any of a number of languages (I'm presuming they can code in at least one mainstream language - I'm including syntax comparisons with Java, C#, Python and Ruby).
Part of the appeal of Scala is that it's practical - you can use it as a drop-in "power Java" (Java with less syntactical clutter, closures, immutability, FP, traits, singleton objects, nifty XML handling, type inference etc.) that still runs on the JVM (and on the .NET CLR supposedly) and doesn't require you to change build tools, server infrastructure, libraries, IDEs and so on. Most of the katas I've seen have been fun but not 'real world' - mathematical challenges like Project Euler and so on. These don't seem appropriate as we're trying to explore the use of it as a practical, real world language that people could consider using for both hacking and work, and because people aren't necessarily going to be too familiar with either the deeper parts of the Scala syntax or necessarily of the concepts behind functional programming.
So, has anyone come across any more practical, everyday katas rather than arithmetical 'problem solving' ones? Katas, that is, that can test whether the language, libraries and tools can satisfy the use cases of the actual day-to-day programming most people have to do rather than testing out. (Not that the impractical ones aren't fun, but just not appropriate for the kind of thing I've been asked to run.)
If I can't find good examples, I'm thinking that it might be useful to try and build something like a library catalogue - the event is for programmers who primarily work on building infrastructure for universities (and in education and culture - museums, galleries, schools, libraries and so on). It's a bit boring though, but it's the sort of thing that the attendees work on in their day-to-day existence. Any suggestions?
There is a creative commons licensed introductory training course with hands-on exercises here:
http://github.com/javaBin/scala-training-slides
http://github.com/javaBin/scala-training-code
The slides are in Open Office format. If you don't have this installed, you can upload them to SlideShare, which will convert them for online viewing.
Most of the programming examples in my blog are, effectively, coding dojo exercises. Particularly the matrices series, but also the puzzles and 99 beers. Now, don't disregard the matrices series as being "mathematical", because the problems I concern myself in it are related to the construction of classes in Scala, not to doing fancy algorithms. In fact, I pretty much skip over the mathematical algorithms themselves.
Now, 99 Scala Problems and pretty much everything from Project Euler are nice exercises for the functional part of Scala, but I understand that not to be your emphasis. I do recommend retronym's answer. Rosetta Code, not being functionally oriented, might have more general examples. There are many with Scala examples, of course, though you may wish to consider other tasks as well, for ideas.
There's lot of cool things to learn about Scala, but one has to be careful at beginner level. For instance, I would not speak of dependency injection (self types and the cake pattern) or of type classes (the pattern that simulates such with implicits).
Do look as well at the material on the Scala Lang site, particularly the Scala by Example document.
EDIT
I have now overseen several Scala dojos, so here's a bit of stuff I've learned from then:
Problems: they have to be fun, not-quite-easy, not-that-hard, and that has to be everyone's opinion.
We use the Dojo Puzzles site, which is in Portuguese so it won't be of use for most people here. If there's a similar site in English, I'd love to hear about it.
The way it works is you ask for a random problem, look it over and discuss to see if you'll pick it up or not, and then indicate by saying you'll use it, you'll not use it, or maybe you'll use it but you'd like to see another one. This vote gets registered and you can see how many people picked up a problem, which helps deciding whether to pick it up or not in first place.
Scala knowledge: it turns out it's not that important to introduce key concepts of Scala language beforehand, particularly if some of the participants have basic knowledge.
In my experience, setting up the testing environment with a trivial "pass" test and explaining how people should write the tests is often enough to get people started. If you feel someone is struggling to write something, give a quick explanation and get on with it.
Teaching Scala: if you do set out to teach Scala, keep lessons short and follow up with a dojo. In this case, keep a set of dojo problems that are adequate to the lesson, and, depending on how many lessons you want in one day, short.
It helps imposing artificial constraints on how one must solve a problem. Some examples of constraints I have put in practice are no classes and single-expression methods (that is, no multiple statements or val/var declarations). The point of these constraints is making it impossible for people to solve the problem in the way they are used to, which gets them to explore the language in search of alternatives.
I have the final results of three dojos done at my current job in this repository.
At the moment we are using the Randori Kata format, but without fixed time or break, and with retrospective at the end of the dojo, not at the beginning of the next. This, however, is just were we are currently at -- we have experimented many variations, and we are still evolving.
Perhaps you could have a look at the Ruby Quiz material for inspiration.
Take a look at Scala by example from Martin Odersky (creator of scala)
What qualities made it so great, and what made it stand out compared to the not-so-great specs that you've had to deal with? Or, if you've never worked with a good functional spec before, what sort of things would you expect in a great spec?
Sorry this is obviously subjective but I'm creating a functional spec (not my first) and it just occurred to me that I may get some good ideas from the bright folks on SO!
The Project Aardvark specs from Joel on Software are the best I've come across so far. Each screen is defined very well, with pictures. The main features of the software are described, as well as some technical details.
Sadly the specs I've received personally aren't that brilliant. Usually they are just a bulleted list of features they expect from each section of the system, and they expect you to work out all the details. Which is fine, I guess. However, I'm writing a game design document for an RPG game I'm working on as a personal project, and I think the specs I'm writing are very well written. I've divided the game into Sections such as
Characters
Weapons & Armor
Levels
Map
Physics
and so on, and described each section in terms of gameplay as well as some technical details. Its very easy to work through.
I also highly recommend reading the Painless Functional Specs Series from Joel on Software for anyone interested in writing better specs.
IMHO, a key quality should be that the functional spec specifies the "what" in great detail but not the "how". That way, the requestor (marketing?) gets the look & feel and feature set that they want, but the implementation is left to those who know it best -- the developers.
Obviously, the specification should be complete, consistent and comprehensible. IMO it should also be well-organized, in that it keeps all requirements for a specific part of the product together. I've more than once read specifications where requirements for some module were scattered throughout the whole document, e.g. the general description is in chapter 4, but additional requirements can found in clauses in chapters 2, 5, 7 and appendix B. To work with such a specification, I first have to create a cross-reference map of requirements to modules.
A good spec should state what the application is supposed to do, in a clear manner.
This seems obvious, but the stuff I usually get is often very vague. Apparently it's not very easy for people to express what they want on paper, IF they even know what they want.