Related
In hist recent talk at Strange Loop Martin Odersky shed the light on his vision of Scala's future version called Dotty. I understand this is work-in-progress and it even may not flow into Scala (at least not very fast) due to many possible backward-compatibility issues. But if it happens, how should we program in Scala today to be forward-compatible with Dotty? I didn't get all the ideas from the talk so I'd like someone more profound to summarize the changes and describe how can we prepare to them.
The only other advice I would give is to also stay away from structural types containing a type members. Those type members are the elements that make type-checking in Scala turing complete, and I am not yet sure whether we want to support that in Dotty. Structural types that contain only vals and defs will likely stay supported.
Towards the end of the talk, he says "if your program is compiled without any language feature imports for higher-kinded and existentials then you should be ok".
So if I understand it correctly the only thing you would need to be aware of is any possible usage of existential types or higher-kinded types in your code.
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.
I've been hearing a lot about different JVM languages, still in vaporware mode, that propose to implement reification somehow. I have this nagging half-remembered (or wholly imagined, don't know which) thought that somewhere I read that Scala somehow took advantage of the JVM's type erasure to do things that it wouldn't be able to do with reification. Which doesn't really make sense to me since Scala is implemented on the CLR as well as on the JVM, so if reification caused some kind of limitation it would show up in the CLR implementation (unless Scala on the CLR is just ignoring reification).
So, is there a good side to type erasure for Scala, or is reification an unmitigated good thing?
See Ola Bini's blog. As we all know, Java has use-site covariance, implemented by having little question marks wherever you think variance is appropriate. Scala has definition-site covariance, implemented by the class designer. He says:
Generics is a complicated language feature. It becomes even more
complicated when added to an existing language that already has
subtyping. These two features don’t play very well together in the
general case, and great care has to be taken when adding them to a
language. Adding them to a virtual machine is simple if that machine
only has to serve one language - and that language uses the same
generics. But generics isn’t done. It isn’t completely understood how
to handle correctly and new breakthroughs are happening (Scala is a
good example of this). At this point, generics can’t be considered
“done right”. There isn’t only one type of generics - they vary in
implementation strategies, feature and corner cases.
...
What this all means is that if you want to add reified generics to the
JVM, you should be very certain that that implementation can encompass
both all static languages that want to do innovation in their own
version of generics, and all dynamic languages that want to create a
good implementation and a nice interfacing facility with Java
libraries. Because if you add reified generics that doesn’t fulfill
these criteria, you will stifle innovation and make it that much
harder to use the JVM as a multi language VM.
i.e. If we had reified generics in the JVM, most likely those reified generics wouldn't be suitable for the features we really like about Scala, and we'd be stuck with something suboptimal.
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..
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
C# 'var' keyword versus explicitly defined variables
EDIT:
For those who are still viewing this, I've completely changed my opinion on var. I think it was largely due to the responses to this topic that I did. I'm an avid 'var' user now, and I think its proponents comments below were absolutely correct in pretty much all cases. I think the thing I like most about var is it REALLY DOES reduce repetition (conforms to DRY), and makes your code considerably cleaner. It supports refactoring (when you need to change the return type of something, you have less code cleanup to deal with, and NO, NOT everyone has a fancy refactoring tool!), and anecdotally, people don't really seem to have a problem not knowing the specific type of a variable up front (its easy enough to "discover" the capabilities of a type on-demand, which is generally a necessity anyway, even if you DO know the name of a type.)
So here's a big applause for the 'var' keyword!!
This is a relatively simple question...more of a poll really. I am a HUGE fan of C#, and have used it for over 8 years, since before .NET was first released. I am a fan of all of the improvements made to the language, including lambda expressions, extension methods, LINQ, and anonymous types. However, there is one feature from C# 3.0 that I feel has been SORELY misused....the 'var' keyword.
Since the release of C# 3.0, on blogs, forums, and yes, even Stackoverflow, I have seen var replace pretty much every variable that has been written! To me, this is a grave misuse of the feature, and leads to very arbitrary code that can have many obfuscated bugs due to the lack in clarity of what type a variable actually is.
There is only a single truly valid use for 'var' (in my opinion at least). What is that valid use, you ask? The only valid use is when you are incapable of knowing the type, and the only instance where that can happen:
When accessing an anonymous type
Anonymous types have no compile-time identity, so var is the only option. It's the only reason why var was added...to support anonymous types.
So...whats your opinion? Given the prolific use of var on blogs, forums, suggested/enforced by tools like ReSharper, etc. many up and coming developers will see it as a completely valid thing.
Do you think var should be used so prolifically?
Do you think var should ever be used for anything other than an anonymous type?
Is it acceptable to use in code posted to blogs to maintain brevity...terseness? (Not sure about the answer this one myself...perhaps with a disclaimer)
Should we, as a community, encourage better use of strongly typed variables to improve code clarity, or allow C# to become more vague and less descriptive?
I would like to know the communities opinions. I see var used a lot, but I have very little idea why, and perhapse there is a good reason (i.e. brevity/terseness.)
var is a splendid idea to help implement a key principle of good programming: DRY, i.e., Don't Repeat Yourself.
VeryComplicatedType x = new VeryComplicatedType();
is bad coding, because it repeats VeryComplicatedType, and the effects are all negative: more verbose and boilerplatey code, less readability, silly "makework" for both the reader and the writer of the code. Because of all this, I count var as a very useful enhancement in C# 3 compared to Java and previous versions of C#.
Of course it can be mildly misused, by using as the RHS an expression whose type is not clear and obvious (e.g., a call to a method whose declaration may be far away) -- such misuse may decrease readability (by forcing the reader to hunt for the method's declaration or ponder deeply about some other subtle expression's type) instead of increasing it. But if you stick to using var to avoid repetition, you'll be in its sweet spot, and no misuse.
I think it should be used in those situations where the type is clearly specified elsewhere in the same statement:
Dictionary<string, List<int>> myHashMap = new Dictionary<string, List<int>>();
is a pain to read. This could be replaced by the following with no loss of clarity:
var myHashMap = new Dictionary<string, List<int>>();
Pop quiz!
What type is this:
var Foo = new string[]{"abc","123","yoda"};
How about this:
var Bar = {"abc","123","yoda"};
It takes me roughly no longer to determine what types those are than with the explicity redundant specification of the type. As a programmer I have no issues with letting a compiler figure out things that are obvious for me. You may disagree.
Cheers.
Never say never. I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of questions where people have expounded their views on var, but here's mine once more.
var is a tool; use it where it's appropriate, and don't use it when it's not. You're right that the only required use of var is when addressing anonymous types, in which case you have no type name to use. Personally, I'd say any other use has to be considered in terms of readability and laziness; specifically, when avoiding use of a cumbersome type name.
var i = 5;
(Laziness)
var list = new List<Customer>();
(Convenience)
var customers = GetCustomers();
(Questionable; I'd consider it acceptable if and only if GetCustomers() returns an IEnumerable)
Read up on Haskell. It's a statically typed language in which you rarely have to state the type of anything. So it uses the same approach as var, as the standard "idiomatic" coding style.
If the compiler can figure something out for you, why write the same thing twice?
A colleague of mine was at first very opposed to var, just as you are, but has now started using it habitually. He was worried it would make programs less self-documenting, but in practice that's caused more by overly long methods.
var MyCustomers = from c in Customers
where c.City="Madrid"
select new { c.Company, c.Mail };
If I need only Company and Mail from Customers collection. It's nonsense define new type with members what I need.
If you feel that giving the same information twice reduces errors (the designers of many web forms that insist you type in your email address twice seem to agree), then you'll probably hate var. If you write a lot of code that uses complicated type specifications then it's a godsend.
EDIT: To exapand this a bit (incase it sounds like I'm not in favour of var):
In the UK (at least at the time I went), it was standard practice to make Computer Science students learn how to program in Standard ML. Like other functional languages it has a type system that puts languages in the C++/Java mould to shame.
Anyway, what I noticed at the time (and heard similar remarks from other students) was that it was a nightmare to get your SML programs to compile because the compiler was so increadibly picky about types, but once the did compile, they almost always ran without error.
This aspect of SML (and other functional languages) seems to be one the questioner sees as a 'good thing' - i.e. that anything that helps the compiler catch more errors at compile time is good.
Now here's the thing with SML: it uses type inference exclusively when assigning. So I don't think type inference can be inherently bad.
I agree with others that var eliminates redundancy. I have decided to use var where it eliminates redundancy as much as possible. I think consistency is important. Choose a style and stick with it through a project.
As Earwicker indicated, there are some functional languages, Haskell being one and F# being another, where such type inference is used much more pervasively -- the C# analogy would be declaring the return types and parameter types of methods as "var", and then having the compiler infer the static type for you. Static and explicit typing are two orthogonal concerns.
In fact, is it even correct to say that use of "var" is dynamic typing? From what I understood, that's what the new "dynamic" keyword in C# 4.0 is for. "var" is for static type inference. Correct me if I am wrong.
I must admit when i first saw the var keyword pop up i was very skeptical.
However it is definitely an easy way to shorten the lines of a new declaration, and i use it all the time for that.
However when i change the type of an underlying method, and accept the return type using var. I do get the occasional run time error. Most are still picked up by the compiler.
The secound issue i run into is when i am not sure what method to use (and i am simply looking through the auto complete). IF i choose the wrong one and expect it to be type FOO and it is type BAR then it takes a while to figure that out.
If i had of literally specified the variable type in both cases it would have saved a bit of frustration.
overall the benefits exceed the problems.
I have to dissent with the view that var reduces redundancy in any meaningful way. In the cases that have been put forward here, type inference can and should come out of the IDE, where it can be applied much more liberally with no loss of readability.