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 11 years ago.
I'm starting to understand Scala and I like it a lot.
How can you position yourself to get a paying job as a Scala developer (assuming those become more common)?
What parts of the Scala ecosystem have the best job potential (Lift, Actors?).
How can you gain credibility with a prospective employer without being able to point to Scala work experience (maybe experience on open-source projects?).
(The above questions are hopefully of somewhat general interest to Scala folk. If you want to factor my particular situation into your response, here are a few details about me: longtime developer (mostly Java) with a Computer Sci PhD; not currently working; I'm tied to a non-cutting edge location (Rochester NY), so I may be limited to remote work.)
Update 2010/07/30:
Thanks for the responses. I'd like to crank up the emphasis on the location issue. I'm tied by family to a location that probably won't have Scala work locally for a long time. Are there realistic prospects for getting remote Scala work, and if so how do you position yourself to get remote work? (A modest amount of travel would be doable, but not a full-on road warrior.)
Also, I was wondering about leveraging my teaching background. Would teaching a Scala class at a local university make a big difference in one's marketability as a developer, or just divert more effort than it is worth?
Pure Scala position:
Finding a pure Scala position is not very easy, but it is getting easier and easier. I am going on my first pure Scala job interview in a few days.
I hope we will see a lot of new systems being written entirely in Scala, and I think these systems will be mostly back-end, heavy duty systems. These systems will be using Scalas less error prone functional style to reduce bugs. I think Akka, SBT and Specs will be important frameworks for the Scala developer (this is not much of a prediction since they are already important).
If you do not find a pure Scala position:
Your credibility comes from your time with Java. Most big companies have heaps of Java code that must be maintained and developed. If it is your job to babysit the old Java code, and as an old Java guru, you should have some say in how this should be done. The first step is to change the Maven setup to allow mixed Java/Scala environment. Moving to SBT is probably your best choice. This is a one time investment you have to do or else you can not proceed!
If you work independently you could probably replace Java with Scala whenever you feel like, most likely when you have to re-factor some old code. Talk about Scala as a "framework" for Java (this is technically a lie) that boosts productivity when speaking to the non technical project manager, this might calm their worrying minds. In the end it will be your responsibility to see to it that Scala indeed integrates with Java. But since Scala does this very well it is not much of a problem. Actually, maintaining old legacy code is not a dream for anyone, so PMs are usually happy if they find anyone who would do it for more than 3 month. Management will probably put up with you rebellion.
If you work in a team it is a bit more tricky. In this case you have to teach the team Scala, or else they will not be able to understand your code. You have to persuade your PM to set aside resources for Scala training (might be hard). When you introduce Scala to a team, start small. My experience is that it takes a while for a Java dude to learn Scala, so this is not done overnight. Therefore, ignore everything that is "hard" when you teach Scala. When the team grasps the basics, start with writing tests in Scala (thank Davetron5000 for this tip), continue to use Java for programming in the application (the production code). Hopefully the team will learn and enjoy Scala and after that, well, it is all downhill from that point.
Good luck!
If I was hiring at the moment, I can tell you right now what questions I would be asking and they would be about the language. It is a hard language to understand at a deep level, even if it seems easy to use and, as a consequence, you might be expected to understand code written in a large number of different styles.
Knowledge of libraries (Akka and Lift being the obvious ones) the sbt build tool is great but it is an extra. I would want to know that you understand:
a bit (well, a lot) about the type system (and higher-kinded types)
something about the typeclasses approach
implicits and the pimp-my-library approach
good scala style (i.e. idiomatic scala)
recursion
the actors approach to concurrency
the standard libraries
functional programming
If you understand the language, you'll pick up the libraries with no problems, I'm sure.
Other libraries:
scalaz for functional programming
scalala for numerical programming (linear algebra etc)
scalaj for interacting with Java
I think your best bet is to get good at Scala and to get visible in the Scala community. These are not necessarily the same thing but luckily they are very closely related in the Scala community. Once you do this there are definitely opportunities to use Scala for fun and profit, whether as a consultant/contractor or as a (remote) full-time employee. As part of getting better and more visible I would recommend becoming active in one of the existing communities (Lift, Akka, ScalaNLP, you name it) or even going out in the wilderness and hacking away to solve a common problem, even if it's just making a native Scala alternative to a popular Java library (e.g. squeryl and Dispatch maybe weren't necessary but they're awesome).
I guess what I'm saying is that contributing to any good, useful Scala code will be good experience and I think the ecosystem is so young that there's no need (or benefit?) to specializing in only one part of it. Of course, if there's a specific subject that Scala is useful for and/or a specific field that benefits from Scala that jumps out to you, direct your attention in that direction.
Having had two full-time Scala jobs at this point, I'd say that the most important thing to do is learn the type system and the standard libraries inside and out. The individual technologies can then be picked up with relative ease.
Also, start using Scala (specifically Specs and ScalaCheck) for testing in your current project, today, if you possibly can.
Finally, as pr1001 said, get visible in the Scala community. Contribute to a project, interact on the mailing list, hang out in #scala on freenode, answer questions where you can.
Take your current job, and implement resume driven development. Just claim that xyz can't get done on schedule without Scala, and then use it. After that, take your project to success and either work elsewhere, open your own business, or continue developing Scala apps at your own company.
It worked for Dick Wall, so it should work for you. :)
Related
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 11 years ago.
since concurrent programming becomes constantly more important, I was wondering
what you think about Erlang vs. Scala in that respect. It seems to me that Scala
has a larger user base and potentially a brighter future than Erlang. Furthermore,
Scala is kind of java.
I know these questions are alway a bit subjective, but what would be the better
future investment: Erlang or Scala. Or even another language?
Erlang has been designed for concurrent, fault-tolerant communication systems. You can easily write servers that handle large number of network connections and (thanks to one garbage collector per Erlang process) the servers can retain soft real-time characteristics (i.e., the whole server is not paused until GC finishes). You can also hot-swap Erlang code, distribute it across several nodes, etc. That's why (arguably) the most-scalable XMPP server (ejabberd) is written in Erlang. Yaws (a web server) is another example where Erlang excels, see: http://www.sics.se/~joe/apachevsyaws.html. Riak/Couch are examples of NoSQL DB build with Erlang. These are the problems where Erlang is a great choice.
But Erlang VM is not as fast as JVM in terms of raw computations, so as soon as you need to do something computationally intensive (e.g. financial modeling) JVM will be your preferred platform. Moreover, Erlang's concurrency model (actors) is baked in the language. If that doesn't fit the problem you're trying to solve, then you won't be happy with Erlang.
Scala is more 'general' language in a sense that concurrency, horizontal scalability, or fault-tolerance is not part of the language. It is solved at the level of libraries (that's why there are at least 3 implementations of actors in Scala). The good thing is that you can pick concurrency model that fits your domain. For example if you need software transactional memory (STM), just pick Akka and you're good to go (http://akka.io/).
Plus there is the whole argument that with Scala you can leverage your "JVM investments" and multitude of JVM libs.
You didn't give any info on what kind of software you want to write with either of those languages so it's hard to give you a definitive answer. Having said that, given all the above, Scala may be "safer" investment than Erlang (not bashing Erlang/OTP at all, it's a fine language/platform).
BTW. If a single-machine concurrency is important to you Clojure (http://clojure.org/) should not be overlooked (also JVM language).
UPDATE1: If you like what Erlang offers but not its syntax, take a look at elixir-lang.org
UPDATE2: STM has been removed from Akka - now you have a choice (mix/match) between actors (untyped or typed) and streams.
It doesn't matter Just pick one and stick with it for a while. Learn some stuff, make some cool things and either keep going with that language or move on to another one.
With respect to learning concurrent programming, either will be fine. The key here is that you will be learning something new and unless there's a job opening that you are trying to get hired for that uses Erlang specifically, it really doesn't matter. Plus, even if that opening did require Erlang, you would still likely have a good chance if you knew Scala really well.
Just think, all of the time you have spent trying to pick a new language could have been better spent if you just picked one and already started learning it by now.
Both languages, at the core, are not that hard to learn, and also to learn the concurrency features they provide. In fact, Scala actors are influenced by Erlang actors. I would go to both of them, take your time looking at their construct, do some tests in concurrency problems, etc.
If you know Java, Scala will be more natural, as Erlang is more like prolog. If, on the contrary, you're more oriented towards mathematical or logical type of languages, start with Erlang.
Now i know that this one is actually not a very technical question but one that has been bothering me for some time. Actually we are using a lot of C++ and PHP at our company and some of our developers are really hoping for a new and modern language to come by to help us getting more productive. I have been talking about what scala can do and the other coders seem to gain some interest in the language. The tough job is, how do you convince your boss to consider scala as a language for the company. I saw the presentation "Sneaking Scala into your company", but it deals with the situation that you are using Java at your company which we don't.
How do you fight of the usual "that is just esoteric stuff" and "we can already do that in $LANGUAGE" arguments. I was planing to give a talk about Scala, and since I don't have much time I need ideas how to get people interested in the language rather then setting of reactions like "currying? we can already do something like this with boost::bind".
How did you guys do it?
Regards,
raichoo
EDIT: Gave my talk yesterday, people were very excited. My company is going to give it a try! Thanks for all your suggestions.
If you don't already have killer arguments, what are you basing your reasoning on that Scala will make your company more productive?
Don't like something then hunt for reasons to use it at work. Let the reasons speak for themselves..
"A hammer looking for nails"
Using it to do some stuff around the side, as datamigrations, testing and similar things will make sure the necessary experience is built and can give it some exposure.
ScalaTest is really nice to help with acceptance/integration testing. (Yes, I know it is nice for unit testing, but I do not see that immediately happening with C++/PHP target code, and it would probably be unwise).
Proof of Concept and other Prototypes are great for 2 reasons
1) It showcases the capabilities
2) You are certain they will be thrown away if you have to reimplement them in C++/PHP
Now a bad time to introduce Scala would be when you REALLY need it : hopes will be high, it will not immediately work as intended, hopes are dashed and everybody will blame Scala. As a result it will be burnt for a long time in the organisation.
Sooner or later some suit will think it was his idea to introduce Scala and use it on a formal project. If that project is moderately successful, then it is sold.
These kind of changes are complicated people issues, and the harder you push, the harder you will face push-back. On the other hand the persistent mind can move mountains.
Redo some of your work related code in Scala and compare KLOC, code structure and performence, if it looks and works better, show it to your peers and your managers.
In other words:
Talk is cheap. Show me the code.
-- Torvalds, Linus (2000-08-25)
In case of our company (and I assume, many companies share the same scenario), move to Scala (from Java) was initiated by tech people, who 1. wanted to work more productive writing code (living in the 21st century utilize modern approaches), 2. have less troubles building concurrent applications (Actors concept promoted by Scala is a way simpler than Java thread-based concurrency) 2.1 have a simpler way of building scalable staged event driven architectures.
In our company, transition to Scala was more or less simple, because Scala was literlly sold to business people as a library to Java :) -> from their POV, we're still using the same platform (JVM), application servers, etc., but developers are having more fun from their work, and therefore, are more inspired and work more efficiently.
Maybe you could pitch Scala by showing off the suite of tools that is used for development? For example, if you are not already using Eclipse in your company, show your execs a demo of what a modern IDE can do for your productivity.
There is a book called "Fearless Change" (Linda Rising) that describes a pattern language for "powerless leaders" (I LOVE that role title!). SE-radio had a really motivating interview with the author: http://www.se-radio.net/podcast/2009-06/episode-139-fearless-change-linda-rising. Listen up on that interview to collect a few non-technical strategies that can help you in this struggle!
I haven't used Scala yet for any real business code, but I know people who have.
One group used it to write a tool to analyze log files. So they didn't use it for mission-critical business code, but for a non-critical tool to support the project.
Another person I know is an architect and he just went and wrote some Scala code on his own for some production code without telling his manager. After the code was deployed successfully he did tell it. One of the things he mentioned is that because Scala runs on the JVM, the people who support the application don't even notice - to them, Scala is just another library that's included with the application (they were already used to the JVM). Ofcourse this approach is risky and not everybody will be in the position or be willing to do this.
You could start small - use it as your personal preferred scripting language for small things that you need yourself. Tell your fellow developers about it and make them enthusiasts too. If they also start using it then you can step it up to make some side code for your project (such as for example that log analyser tool).
This isn't a really easy task. I would concentrate on the fact that you will be able to produce code and therefore products faster and with a higher quality. That's always the two reasons, business wants to hear from you and will listen to.
Maybe you can show an example of 1-2 very small projects you did in your company with C++/PHP and compare the effort, quality etc. with a similar/the same implemenation in Scala? This would be very impressive and should also convince people who are not on the coding side.
There was a very good talk at Scala Days 2010 by David Copeland:
Sneaking Scala into your organisation
The executive summary: Testing. You can use Scala for testing without affecting release code.
we are considering Scala for a new Project within our company. We have some Junior Programmers with only PHP knowledge, and we are in doubt that they can handle Scala. What are your opinions? Some say: "Scala is a complicated beast!", some say: "It's easy once you got it." Maybe someone has real-world experience?
"My coworkers will not understand Scala" is simultaneously overstating its difficulty and insulting your coworkers.
Scala is not that difficult. It's just another programming language. Any trouble that junior programmers have with Scala is going to be more or less the same trouble they would have with any other language.
Your coworkers are smart. Of course, I don't know them, but it's a pretty safe bet unless your company is the kind of organisation that hires stupid people, in which case, you have bigger problems.
That said, at my company we have some core products developed in Scala, and we don't find that people have any more trouble with it than Java. The code is generally more clear and concise, easier to generalise and reuse, etc.
I guess Scala could be used as a "beginners" language. Even though there are tricky ideas behind it, you dont have to use/explain them in the beginning. If you explain pure OO with Scala, I would say it is straight forward and easily understandable. As Scala reduces a lot of code overhead from other languages it might even be easier to learn concepts with Scala than with Java/C++.
A major drawback I see with Scala as a beginner language is the lack of documentation. Don't get this wrong, the official Scala doc is very good and also the few books that are available are quite useful to get the details of the language, but those have not been written for beginners. For example in Java you find hundreds of books titled something like "Learning OO with Java" you wont find that for Scala which may be a show stopper.
As Hannes mentioned, only do new language introductions within research projects and not productive or even flagship projects. If you have some juniors, that makes the situation even better, take some internal tool, you always wanted and needed and let them create it during a research project. This is also a nice opportunity to experiment with different development-processes. And your juniors most probably like to be challenged and will deliver a good prototype and a very well proofed opinion if Scala can be used as a beginner language.
I believe that most people moving to Scala are experienced and enthusiastic coders. I'd suggest that you get in-house experience with a Scala project with your senior programmers first before forming a strategy for mentoring your junior coders. I'd also suggest that you only involve people who are eager to join in.
I would advocate it. But with the proviso that you have clear guidelines on what language features are acceptable for your team. For example, coding primarily in an imperative style (which is familiar for Java-trained people), or perhaps limiting the employment of recursion or closures.
Also plan for seniors to mentor the juniors. This may take the form of any combination of: pair programming, code reviews, info sessions, regular discussion forums, etc.
The opportunity that scala presents for vastly improved coding on the JVM is too great to pass up. When your seniors get into it I would not be surprised if they find renewed passion for development. When your juniors get into it they will be learning best practice JVM development from the start.
If you choose to go this route, perhaps they'll find easier to use the Scalate framework than a more traditional one like Lift, since it allows mixing HTML with Scala, much in the same way as PHP works.
Scala is a very 'normal' programming language. Any programmer should be able to learn this language. The people that have difficulties learning Scala mostly are experienced with imperative languages and are surprised by the functional concepts. So unexperienced programmers may learn it even faster. In my opinion should be no problem, to assign it to juniors. From a management point of view, I would assign a junior and a senior developer as a team (or more of both, depending on the size of the project).
I think it depends whats more importent for you. If you want to learn as possible about OO Programming and the standard stuff its a bad idea.
But what you really give them is a opportunity to learn something really cool and unique. Witch can be good motivation. Scala has many cool stuff in it. If you can handle Scala you can handle a lot of otherstuff as well.
Talk to the Programmers (all of them) and tell them why you wanne to use scala. Ask if the have to motivation to make and learn something not everybody can do and go the extra mile?
If the are go with it!
My initial thought would be that Scala will be too heavy for them but then I guess because Scala is an OO/Imperitave/Functional hybrid, one could introduce them to the OO/Imperative part of scala until their comfortable, but then again they will probably have bad PHP habits in Scala since scala authors mostly prefer the functional style over the imperative one.
So, it could work, but I would do it for a research project, and definately not for a flagship one.
Edit: Perhaps this should be said also: It seems that functional/OO hybrids like Scala is becoming more popular especially because of how functional languages handles parallel processing as opposed to how we know it in languages like in Java. The amount of cores found in a chip is increasing rapidly, so this is important. However, mentioning PHP, it seems that you are developing web server scripts where threading is less important. PHP doesn't even have threads.
This raises another point. Do you want to develop Scala Web applications i.e. Lift. If so then you have a doubled up learning curve which should also be considered.
Imagine that you would have picked Java and asked whether they could handle Java. If your answer is they could, then they can probably handle Scala.
Scala is only marginally more difficult due to:
No great IDE support. The support ranges from poor to good. Not necessarily an issue for a PHP programmer.
Documentation not as rich as Java
Both Java and Scala have new challenges for a PHP programmer (JVM, new libraries, compiled language, statically typed).
I don't think Scala is a complicated beast, but you do need to understand some of the syntactic sugar and design principles, which would be true of learning Java as well.
Yes, if...
Strategic decision has been made to go with Scala
Company can handle the hit (financial and time) that will come from the steep learning curve.
No, if...
No senior Java, C# or C++ programmers can be put on the project too
Can't find a Scala programmer to act as a lead
Programmers don't have the patience to learn Scala or deal with a language where Jars (libraries) are scattered all over the place, rather than in one or two neat packages like PHP.
*Note: if the junior programmers were C++, C#, or Java Software Engineers rather than PHP, then my answer would be different like, Go for it!
I would not recommend it. My experience of Scala is only from homebrew projects, but I would imagine the currently lousy IDE support, quite frequent API changes and a very flexible syntax (that allows one to hang himself and everybody else participating in the project) would cause a lot of problems in a bigger, more official project.
Give them IntelliJ and throw 'em in the deep end.
Here is a blog post I recently stumbled upon:
http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2008/07/java-is-too-academic.html
It shows that even Java can be too academic to be understood by programmers which have no experience in functional programming. On the other hand, Scala allows to write code the "imperative way", so you can avoid all the FP stuff if you do not understand it. In my opinion, Scala is much more concise than Java, so I guess a "junior programmer" should be able to handle it.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
For the next 3 years I will have to work with the JVM (project requirement) using a very specific third party API. They want Java but I've been given leeway to move away from Java. I was hoping we could move back to the .NET framework so I could develop code in F#, being absolutely in love with OCaml. .NET development has been struck down by our customer. It is a no go.
I've turned to looking, reading, and poking around programming blogs/forums trying to understand which language might appeal to me further: Scala or Clojure. Those seem to have the largest community/fan base. Being experienced with ML languages I see lots of people who compare Scala to ML. However, there are some real naysayers when making this comparison. If Scala was that close to ML my productivity and learning curve would benefit making this switch.
The internet is full of misinformation and wonder if I'm suffering from such. I don't like the syntax of Lisp (don't hurt me!) but if Scala has the warts I'm reading (poor IDE support, in flux Unit testing framework, performance issues) I'm wondering if Clojure is the better option. I want to be productive out of the gate, using functions as first class objects, and minimizing concurrency pain.
So anyways, before I spend too much time on the internet and not working... I'm stuck with the JVM, sick of Java and wondering where to go?
In my opinion, both Clojure and Scala don't have great IDE support, if that's really important to you. That said, here's what I can collect from my reading & experience.
Scala's pros
Faster than Clojure thanks to more static typing
Closer to ML (syntax, type-directed programming)
Bigger standard API (Clojure's APIs grow very slowly, because they want to make sure they find the best idioms before making them public. That said, Clojure still has semi-official supplementary APIs)
Better integration practices with the typical Java toolset (Clojure is still making some choices, so less firmly established yet on this regard)
Older than Clojure (but Clojure is built on top of a very old and proven core: Lisp)
People say it has chances to reach mainstream, while they wouldn't say the same about Clojure
Clojure's pros
Incredibly easy, fast and right concurrency thanks to MVCC-based STM and other concurrency mechanisms
Immutability by default helps doing the right thing first
More stable standard API
When things change, usually you don't have to rewrite any existing code
(Scala's collections are being remade again for 2.8)
(I have also read somewhere that it's common knowledge that Scala's Actors implementation needs a rethinking and rewrite.)
Easier to learn (small language, being a (very-clean) Lisp)
An opportunity for you to grow by learning something different
Clojure's performance will only get better with time; there's still room for nice optimizations in the compiler
Scala's tying to Java feels more limiting than Clojure's (interactions between Scala's and Java's static type systems). One could sometimes say the same about Clojure (Object-Orientation's support is not a 1:1 fit, but support for this will soon get better)
Rich Hickey has a gift for making choices that put Clojure in the position of having technical leading features that will be adopted by other languages in the decades to follow. And he also has a gift for explaining them. So use them today in Clojure, or wait to use them in another language in some number of years. :)
On distributed concurrency
If your concurrency needs are distributed, Clojure doesn't yet have anything for this unless you run it on top of Terracotta or something similar, in which case you'll be able to use all its concurrency features. If you do, you will end up with a better distributed concurrency experience than with Scala's Actors, IMO.
Conclusion
IMO Scala tries to do everything, and succeeds at doing most of it. Clojure doesn't try the same thing, but what it focuses on is more than enough and succeeds so well that most people really knowing Clojure wouldn't want to go back to something else. Disclosure: my personal preference goes, of course, to Clojure. I hope I've been able to be objective in what I wrote.
Have you considered Groovy? I don't think it is quite as functional as Scala/Clojure, but it's certainly a lot more functional than Java**. In general, I can get the same work done in Groovy with about 50% of the code it would take me in Java.
This is because Groovy is syntactically similar to Java and provides seamless access to the JDK libraries, but the addition of a lot of language features (closures, meta-programming, properties) and dynamic typing eliminates almost all the boilerplate associated with Java programming.
** I mean functional in the sense of 'functional programming' rather than 'working correctly'
I'll address the points you raised about Scala.
IDE support:
Scala doesn't have the same level or IDE support Java has -- or, for that matter, that F# should have with VS10.
That said, it has one of the best (maybe even the best?) IDE supports on JVM, outside Java. Right now NetBeans is good enough, and people have consistently said IDEA is still better (hearsay). The Eclipse plugin is unstable though.
But you mentioned a 3-years range, and the IDE support for Scala should be greatly enhanced once Scala 2.8 is out, as it will provide some compiler-support for IDEs. There's no release date defined, but it looks to be within the next six months, maybe three. And the Eclipse plugin will be updated right along with it.
In flux unit testing framework:
Yes, if you meant it is vibrant, evolving and well supported, instead of stagnant and abandoned. ScalaTest, Specs and ScalaCheck are top quality frameworks, compatible between themselves, and compatible with other Java frameworks and libraries, such as JUnit and JMock.
The testing frameworks, in fact, are almost a child poster of what is possible with Scala.
EDIT: Scala has basic unit test support in its standard library (scala.testing.SUnit). However, given that many superior, actively-supported and free alternatives have appeared, this has been deprecated and will likely not be part of the library shipped with Scala 2.8.
Performance issues:
I'm unaware of any, aside from the fact that you can write lousy code, just as with any other language. People not used to functional programming will often do stuff that's not efficient, such as not using tail recursion, or concatenating lists, and the paradigm shift that Scala enables brings that to light.
At any rate, you can write Scala code as fast as Java code (even faster with some upcoming features). And you can write Scala code with functional features almost as fast as Java code.
Quite frankly, get another job.
If you are to spend the next three years feeling uncomfortable on what you're doing, you should consider looking for more attractive alternatives.
Even if you manage to get a language you like, if you are part of a team ( which I guess you are ) the rest of the team might not like that language. If the rest of them code in Java and you in "fill in the blank" programming language, then problems may arise.
It is not that bad after all.
Talk with your boss, let him know how do you feel. Start looking for alternatives and have a nice and professional "leave".
There is no reason why you can't still have a good relationship with your current boss. If eventually they have a new project for .net you may come back. Talk about that also with them. Leave your doors open.
Its not really a zero sum game, learn them all!
ps: i vote for Clojure, i find it the most fun!
You should consider yourself lucky that you can use the JVM, because the JVM is becoming more and more popular for alternative programming languages than Java.
Besides Java there's Groovy, Scala, Clojure (a Lisp dialect on the JVM), JRuby (Ruby on the JVM), Jython (Python on the JVM), Jaskell (Haskell on the JVM), Fan (runs on the JVM as well as the .NET CLR) and lots more, and there's also an OCaml-Java, OCaml that runs on the JVM.
So, there's lots of choice in programming languages on the JVM, from purely functional to simple scripting and anvanced OO languages.
Tool support for Scala and Clojure may be immature, but it's steadily improving.
Since you like F#, then Scala is most likely your best bet. I say try it out and form your own opinion - you might find that the things people gripe about are things that don't matter to you, or things you can work around.
Don't forget jRuby, and note that an IDE is optional for non-Java
I think you have a great situation. How many people get permission to choose the implementation language? With everything available for the JVM having your environment chosen is not much of a restriction.
You won't need great IDE support in the less verbose languages
In a language as powerful as Ruby with no type declarations, you don't need an IDE at all
Scala was developed specifically to cure the verbose-java-blues
Count yourself lucky that you have three years of work lined up :-)
Clojure might be fun and provides functional concurrency-safe design patterns
Noop? http://code.google.com/p/noop/ (experimental though)
In terms of IDE support and other doubts you're having, Clojure doesn't do any better than Scala. And for a person with ML/F# background (or generally that in strictly, statically typed FP languages), you'll definitely find Scala much closer to what you're used to.
If you like ML you might like CAL which is more-or-less Haskell 98 for the JVM.
It is high quality and very stable, and has good IDE support on Eclipse, but sadly is no longer under active development.
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 10 years ago.
I develop in Lisp and in Scheme, but I was reading about Clojure and then I want to know, in which cases is better to use it than using Lisp or Scheme? Thanks
This question is impossible to answer. You should use Clojure nearly 100% of the time over CL and Scheme, is what I would say. But that doesn't mean you should listen to me. Others can make a good argument that the opposite is the case.
For me, the syntax and function names in Clojure aesthetically pleasing. Certain Java libraries are invaluable for what I do for data munging and web programming and GUI stuff. Functional programming is challenging and enjoyable. Clojure's flaws are unimportant and outweighed by its benefits in my eyes. Certain intolerable flaws in other Lisps are "fixed" in Clojure, because it's new and it can ignore backwards compatibility. It has a novel and arguably powerful approach to concurrency. The Clojure community is vibrant and welcoming and awesome. All of this says as much about me and what I value as it does about Clojure or other Lisps.
There are libraries for CL and Scheme that don't exist in Clojure or Java. There are people who dislike how Clojure uses too much syntax like [] and {} and want to use parens everywhere. If you want CLOS-style OOP or lots of mutable data structures, another Lisp is arguably better. The JVM is heavyweight, maybe too heavyweight and too much baggage for some people. A lot of Java leaks into Clojure (by design) and this offends some people's sensibilities. The STM and immutable data structures have overheads that make certain things (e.g. number crunching) slower or less elegant. Clojure is new and still rough in certain areas, still rapidly changing and evolving in others. Clojure has yet to pass the test of time, whereas other Lisps already have. Clojure is not a "standard" and some people find a language defined by an implementation to be unappealing. And so on. None of these things matter to me, but they may to you.
This is almost entirely subjective. Which language you should use depends on what you already know, what you are willing to learn, what libraries you want to use, what editors and tools you're comfortable with, what language flaws you're willing to live with and work around and what flaws you can't tolerate, and what helps you get your work done faster, more cheaply, more enjoyably, or achieve whatever your goals are.
Basically, whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy. Learn them all and then make an informed choice based on your own tastes, and use whichever one you like the best. They're all good.
"Clojure runs on the JVM" means you get the whole cornucopia of Java libraries available. You can make pretty GUIs in Swing, use Apache's Web client or server code, connect a ready-built Sudoku solver... whatever you like.
Another big plus of Clojure is its very polished concurrency support, with about 3 different flavors. If you have a compute-intensive, parallelizable task, Clojure can make it easy. Well, easier.
Update: Another argument. Clojure is pretty strongly functional, so it's a plus if you want to force yourself to think and write functionally.
Clojure should be used when
you need to work with existing java code.
you work with people who are allergic to lisp ("boss, i would like to use a java concurrency library called clojue vs. I would like to re-write this in scheme" [1]
you will be programming for a multi-processor system.
Scheme would be better when:
you need to prove your code is correct. Clojures (call out to java) hinders but does not prevent this.
you are working with people who are allergic to java.
you are developing for a platform with no (new enough) JVM
[1] yes this is a bad bad bad reason. such is the world we live in...
When? As much as possible.
Why? Immutable Data Structures - they really are that good. There are plenty of other reasons too.
ABCL (Armed Bear Common Lisp) and a several of Scheme implementations (KAWA, SISC, ...) are also running on the JVM.
Generally Common Lisp is available in different 'flavors' - ABCL is one of them. Other compile to C, to native code, have extensive development environments or specialized extensions like logic languages or databases.
Clojure OTOH is a new Lisp dialect with emphasis on lazy functional programming and concurrent programming. Its author (Rich Hickey) is a very experienced software developer (he has also written Java and .net interfaces for Common Lisp) and did an excellent job with Clojure. Even though there is some hype around the language, it is worth checking out - it is definitely one of the better Lisp dialects developed in recent years (compared to say Newlisp or Arc).
There are lot's of reasons, some mentioned above. My take is:
The pre-existing libraries. This is such a benefit. I just can't praise this feature enough.
The language is more adapted to the
hardware currently available
(multi-core) and the development
paradigms in use today. It is so much easier to reason about concurrency. The functional aspects are nicer too. You can do functional programming in Lisp, obviously, but it is very easy to break the paradigm unknowingly, unwittingly, and unintentionally.
Cross platform. I run identical
programs on Linux, Windows, and the
Mac. There are lot's of native Lisps
that run across platforms, but
support for all features on all
platforms is a bit spotty and you
constantly have to be on the alert
for things that are missing on one
platform or the other. Likewise,the
libraries you need are not always
consistently supported across
platforms. ABCL and some of the
JVM Scheme implementations have this
consistent support as well, but I
still prefer Clojure because of
point 2.
The nature of the language
community. Let's face it, a lot of
the time the Common Lisp community
is just nasty to deal with. That is
not the case with Clojure at all.
It's easy to get useful help without
the condescension and meanness that
often comes with an answer from the
Common Lisp community. As I have
learned for myself several times,
there is no question so stupid that
you won't get a polite and helpful
reply from the Clojure community.
If I had to find one thing to complain about, it would be IDE support. Maybe it's a question of learning new habits, but it is still easier for me to handle the mechanics of Java development than Clojure. I have tried, and use, Clojure Box, enclojure on NetBeas, La Clojure on Intellij IDEA, and Counterclockwise on Eclipse. They all work fine if you are working primarily from the REPL, but for compilation and execution of class files, they all still feel a bit clumsy.
A subset of Clojure can also compile to javascript
Clojure runs on the JVM (and on the CLR), so there is that.
Clojure's design is concerned with accommodating several styles of concurrent programming safely, deliberately making it difficult to mistakenly write the dangerous, rickety, and often broken concurrency-tolerant code in other languages. If your problem domain involves concurrent programming, Clojure's array of integrated tools for managing concurrency may be a better fit than the implementation-specific or lowest-common-denominator libraries available in other Lisps and Schemes.
One of the greatest things about Clojure is the plethora of libraries you can use with it. You have the power of Java with the expressiveness of Lisp, and that is a badass combination. Clojure is more suited for real world development, because it was made for real world development. With Clojure, you have awesome libraries, awesome modern features, and an amazing community of helpful, like-minded people.
I would have to say that Clojure is a better language, all the way around. That is a highly argumentative statement to make, so I will point out here that this is just my honest opinion.
Clojure rocks.
I'm always trying to learn new languages, so I'm interested in learning Clojure. But, aren't SBCL and some other Common Lisp implementations much, much faster than Clojure? Wouldn't you need considerably more than 4 processors (and a reasonably parallelizable task) to make up for the performance difference between a Clojure app and even a single-threaded SBCL version of the same app?
As a general rule of thumb, I tend to favor Clojure over other languages in cases where either of these fit the bill:
(1). The domain model tends to look very recursive and/or graph-like.
(2). There's an opportunity to leverage a multi-core JVM environment (e.g., Elastic Beanstalk)
(3). There's a fuzzy barrier between data and code (think RPN calculator where nodes can be operators or numbers)
These might sound a bit contrived, but a lot of my work involves dealing with graphs and trees of information, whether it's looking at social networks, some kind of constrained-based optimization, or semantic relationship building. I find that my other favorite language, Ruby, cannot give me the mix of expressiveness and raw computing power compared to Clojure, particularly when it comes to quantitative, recursive, concurrent-type problem solving.