I have a class that inherits the Actor trait. In my code, I have a method that creates x numbers of this actor using a loop and another method that simply sends the Finish message to all of them to tell them to terminate. I made the kill method just take an array of Actor since I want to be able to use it with an array of any type of Actor. For some reason, however, when I pass a value of type Array[Producer], where Producer extends Actor, to a method that accepts the type Array[Actor], I get a type error. Shouldn't Scala see that Producer is a type of Actor and automatically cast this?
What you are describing is called covariance, and it is a property of most of the collection classes in Scala--a collection of a subtype is a subtype of the collection of the supertype. However, since Array is a Java primitive array, it is not covariant--a collection of a subtype is simply different. (The situation is more complicated in 2.7 where it's almost a Java primitive array; in 2.8 Array is just a plain Java primitive array, since the 2.7 complications turned out to have unfortunate corner cases.)
If you try the same thing with an ArrayBuffer (from collection.mutable <- edit: this part is wrong, see comments) or a List (<- edit: this is true) or a Set (<- edit: no, Set is also invariant), you'll get the behavior you want. You could also create an Array[Actor] to begin with but always feed it Producer values.
If for some reason you really must use Array[Producer], you can still cast it using .asInstanceOf[Array[Actor]]. But I suggest using something other than primitive arrays--anything you could possibly be doing with actors will be far slower than the tiny overhead of using a more full-featured collection class.
Related
I'm new in Scala and don't understand some base things.
Scala does not contains primitives. Hence int, short and other "simple" number types are objects. So, according to JMM, they are not located at stack and subject to cleaning by GB. Cleaning by GB may be too expensive for some cases.
So I don't clearly understand, why Scala is considered faster than Java (in which primitives located in stack).
Scala does not contains primitives. Hence int, short and other "simple" number types are objects.
That is correct.
So, according to JMM,
The Java Memory Model is for Java. It is completely irrelevant to Scala.
they are not located at stack and subject to cleaning by GB. Cleaning by GB may be too expensive for some cases.
There is no such thing as a "stack" in Scala. The Scala Language Specification only mentions the term "stack" in very few places, and none of them have anything to do with Ints:
In section 1 Lexical Syntax, subsection 1.6 XML mode, it is said that because XML literals and Scala code can be arbitrarily nested, the parser has to use a stack data structure to keep track of the context.
In section 7 Implicits, subsection 7.2 Implicit parameters, it is said that to prevent an infinite recursion when searching for implicit, the compiler keeps a stack of "open types", which are types that it is currently searching an implicit for.
In section 6 Expressions, subsection 6.6 Function Applications, there is the following statement, specifying Proper Direct Tail Recursion:
A function application usually allocates a new frame on the program's run-time stack. However, if a local method or a final method calls itself as its last action, the call is executed using the stack-frame of the caller.
In section 6 Expressions, subsection 6.20 Return Expressions, there is the following statement about one possible implementation strategy for non-local returns from nested functions:
Returning from the method from within a nested function may be implemented by throwing and catching a scala.runtime.NonLocalReturnControl. Any exception catches between the point of return and the enclosing methods might see and catch that exception. A key comparison makes sure that this exception is only caught by the method instance which is terminated by the return.
If the return expression is itself part of an anonymous function, it is possible that the enclosing method m has already returned before the return expression is executed. In that case, the thrown scala.runtime.NonLocalReturnControl will not be caught, and will propagate up the call stack.
Of these 4 instances, the first 2 clearly do not refer to the concept of a call stack but rather to the generic computer science data structure. The 4th one is only an example of a possible implementation strategy ("Returning from the method from within a nested function may be implemented by […]"). Only the 3rd one is actually relevant, as it indeed talks about a call stack. However, it does not say anything about allocating Ints, and it explicitly leaves the door open to alternative implementations as well, by stating that "usually" function application leads to allocation of a stack frame, but doesn't have to.
So I don't clearly understand, why Scala is considered faster than Java (in which primitives located in stack).
Actually, there is nothing in the Java Language Specification either that says that primitives are located on the stack. In fact, the Java Language Specification does not mandate the existence of a stack at all. It would be perfectly legal to implement Java without a stack.
There are exactly zero occurrences of the term "stack" in the JLS. There are a couple of mentions of the term "heap", but only in the compound term "heap pollution", which is simply a word describing a certain flaw in the type system, but does not necessarily require a heap, and does not mandate a heap.
And none of these mentions of "heap pollution" have anything to do with primitives.
Note that, when I say that the Scala Language Specification says nothing about stacks or heaps or how Ints are allocated, that is actually really important. Because the SLS doesn't say anything, implementors are allowed to do whatever they want, including making Ints primitive and allocating them on the stack.
And that is exactly what most Scala implementations do. The (now-defunct) Scala.NET implemented scala.Int as a .NET System.Int32. Scala-native implements scala.Int as a C int32_t. Scala.js implements scala.Int as an ECMAScript number. And Scala-JVM implements scala.Int as a JVM int.
If you check out the source code of scala.Int in the Scala-JVM repository (src/library/scala/Int.scala), you will find that it is actually empty! More precisely, it only contains documentation and declarations, but no definitions or implementations. Also, the class is marked final (meaning it can't be inherited from) and abstract (meaning it must be inherited from in order to provide overrides for the missing implementations), which is a contradiction.
How does this work? Well, the compiler knows what an Int is and how it works, and it simply generates the correct code for dealing with a JVM int. So, when it sees a call to scala.Int.+, it knows that instead it must generate an iadd bytecode instruction. Likewise, Scala-native will just generate the native integer addition instructions, and so on.
In other words, Ints are semantically defined as objects, but they are actually pragmatically implemented as primitives.
This is a general rule of how language specifications work: typically, they only describe what the result is that the programmer sees, but they leave it open to the implementor how to actually achieve that result. So, the SLS specifies that an Int must look as if it actually were an object, but there is nothing that says it actually has to be one.
They are handled the same way that Java handles those types, they're only boxed when strictly necessary. The details on how and when they are boxed may differ, but the compiler uses a primitive representation if it can do so. Here's what the docs say (this is just for Int, but it applies to other "primitive" types too):
Int, a 32-bit signed integer (equivalent to Java's int primitive type) is a subtype of scala.AnyVal. Instances of Int are not represented by an object in the underlying runtime system.
There is an implicit conversion from scala.Int => scala.runtime.RichInt which provides useful non-primitive operations.
https://www.scala-lang.org/api/2.13.6/scala/Int.html
The main difference, really, is that there aren't two separate types, like in Java, to represent the boxed and unboxed representations — both get the same Int type, whereas Java has int and Integer.
I am new to Scala and trying to explore how I can use Java functionalities with Scala.
I am having stream of LocalDate which is a Java class and I am trying to find maximum date out of my list.
var processedResult : Stream[LocalDate] =List(javaList)
.toStream
.map { s => {
//some processing
LocalDate.parse(str, formatter)
}
}
I know we can do easily by using .compare() and .compareTo() in Java but I am not sure how do I use the same thing over here.
Also, I have no idea how Ordering works in Scala when it comes to sorting.
Can anyone suggest how can get this done?
First of all, a lot of minor details that I will point out since it seems you are pretty new to the language and I expect those to help you with your learning path.
First, avoid var at all costs, especially when learning.
While mutability has its place and is not always wrong, forcing you to avoid it while learning will help you. Particularly, avoid it when it doesn't provide any value; like in this case.
Second, this List(javaList) doesn't do what you think it does. It creates a single element Scala List whose unique element is a Java List. What you probably want is to transform that Java List into a Scala one, for that you can use the CollectionConverters.
import scala.jdk.CollectionConverters._ // This works if you are in 2.13
// if you are in 2.12 or lower use: import scala.collection.JavaConverters._
val scalaList = javaList.asScala.toList
Third, not sure why you want to use a Scala Stream, a Stream is for infinite or very large collections where you want all the transformations to be made lazily and only produce elements as they are consumed (also, btw, it was deprecated in 2.13 in favour of LazyList).
Maybe, you are confused because in Java you need a "Stream" to apply functional operations like map? If so, note that in Scala all collections provide the same rich API.
Fourth, Ordering is a Typeclass which is a functional pattern for Polymorphism. On its own, this is a very broad question so I won't answer it here, but I hope the two links provide insight.
The TL;DR; is simple, it is just that an Ordering for a type T knows how to order (sort) elements of type T. Thus operations like max will work for any collection of any type if, and only if, the compiler can prove the existence of an Ordering for that type if it can then it will pass such value implicitly to the method call for you; again the implicits topic is very broad and deserves its own question.
Now for your particular question, you can just call max or maxOption in the List or Stream and that is all.
Note that max will throw if the List is empty, whereas maxOption returns an Option which will be empty (None) for an empty input; idiomatic Scala favour the latter over the former.
If you really want to use compareTo then you can provide your own Ordering.
scalaList.maxOption(Ordering.fromLessThan[LocalDate]((d1, d2) => d1.compareTo(d2) < 0))
Ordering[A] is a type class which defines how to compare 2 elements of type A. So to compare LocalDates you need Ordering[LocalDate] instance.
LocalDate extends Comparable in Java and Scala conveniently provides instances for Comparables so when you invoke:
Ordering[java.time.LocalDate]
in REPL you'll see that Scala is able to provide you the instance without you needing to do anything (you could take a look at the list of methods provided by this typeclass).
Since you have and Ordering in implicit scope which types matches the Stream's type (e.g. Stream[LocalDate] needs Ordering[LocalDate]) you can call .max method... and that's it.
val processedResult : Stream[LocalDate] = ...
val newestDate: LocalDate = processedResult.max
I know Scala Nothing is the bottom type. When I see the API it extends from "Any" which is the top in the hierarchy.
Now since Scala does not support multiple inheritance, how can we say that it is the bottom type. In other words it is not inheriting directly all the classes or traits like Seq, List, String, Int and so on. If that is the case how can we say that it is the bottom of all type ?
What I meant is that if we are able to assign List[Nothing] (Nil) to List[String] as List is covariant in scala how it is possible because there is no direct correlation between Nothing and String type. As we know Nothing is a bottom type but I am having little difficulty in seeing the relation between String and Nothing as I stated in the above example.
Thanks & Regards,
Mohamed
tl;dr summary: Nothing is a subtype of every type because the spec says so. It cannot be explained from within the language. Every language (or at least almost every language) has some things at the very core that cannot be explained from within the language, e.g. java.lang.Object having no superclass even though every class has a superclass, since even if we don't write an extends clause, the class will implicitly get a superclass. Or the "bootstrap paradox" in Ruby, Object being an instance of Class, but Class being a subclass of Object, and thus Object being an indirect instance of itself (and even more directly: Class being an instance of Class).
I know Scala Nothing is the bottom type. When I see the API it extends from "Any" which is the top in the hierarchy.
Now since Scala does not support multiple inheritance, how can we say that it is the bottom type.
There are two possible answers to this.
The simple and short answer is: because the spec says so. The spec says Nothing is a subtype of all types, so Nothing is the subtype of all types. How? We don't care. The spec says it is so, so that's what it is. Let the compiler designers worry about how to represent this fact within their compiler. Do you care how Any is able to have to superclass? Do you care how def is represented internally in the compiler?
The slightly longer answer is: Yes, it's true, Nothing inherits from Any and only from Any. But! Inheritance is not the same thing as subtyping. In Scala, inheritance and subtyping are closely tied together, but they are not the same thing. The fact that Nothing can only inherit from one class does not mean that it cannot be the subtype of more than one type. A type is not the same thing as a class.
In fact, to be very specific, the spec does not even say that Nothing is a subtype of all types. It only says that Nothing conforms to all types.
In other words it is not inheriting directly all the classes or traits like Seq, List, String, Int and so on. If that is the case how can we say that it is the bottom of all type ?
Again, we can say that, because the spec says we can say that.
How can we say that def defines a method? Because the spec says so. How can we say that a b c means the same thing as a.b(c) and a b_: c means the same thing as { val __some_unforgeable_id__ = a; c.b_:(__some_unforgeable_id__) }? Because the spec says so. How can we say that "" is a string and '' is a character? Because the spec says so.
What I meant is that if we are able to assign List[Nothing] (Nil) to List[String] as List is covariant in scala how it is possible because there is no direct correlation between Nothing and String type.
Yes, there is a direct correlation between the types Nothing and String. Nothing is a subtype of String because Nothing is a subtype of all types, including String.
As we know Nothing is a bottom type but I am having little difficulty in seeing the relation between String and Nothing as I stated in the above example.
The relation between String and Nothing is that Nothing is a subtype of String. Why? Because the spec says so.
The compiler knows Nothing is a subtype of String the same way it knows 1 is an instance of Int and has a + method, even though if you look at the source code of the Scala standard library, the Int class is actually abstract and all its methods have no implementation.
Someone, somewhere wrote some code within the compiler that knows how to handle adding two numbers, even though those numbers are actually represented as JVM primitives and don't even exist inside the Scala object system. The same way, someone, somewhere wrote some code within the compiler that knows that Nothing is a subtype of all types even though this fact is not represented (and is not even representable) in the source code of Nothing.
Now since Scala does not support multiple inheritance
Scala does support multiple inheritance, using trait mixin. This is currently not commutative, i.e. the type A with B is not identical with B with A (this will happen with Dotty), but still it's a form of multiple inheritance, and indeed one of Scala's strong points, as it solves the diamond problem through its linearisation rules.
By the way, Null is another bottom type, inherited from Java (which could also be said to have a Nothing bottom type because you can throw a runtime exception in any possible place).
I think you need to distinguish between class inheritance and type bounds. There is no contradiction in defining Nothing as a bottom type, although it does not "explicitly" inherit from any type you want, such as List. It's more like a capability, the capability to throw an exception.
if we are able to assign List[Nothing] (Nil) to List[String] as List is covariant in scala how it is possible because there is no direct correlation between Nothing and String type
Yes, the idea of the bottom type is that Nothing is also (among many other things) a sub-type of String. So you can write
def foo: String = throw new Exception("No")
This only works because Nothing (the type of throwing an exception) is more specific than the declared return type String.
I was wondering if there is a good reason to use Collection.empty[T] instead of new Collection[T]() (or the inverse) ? Or is it just a personal preference ?
Thanks.
Calling new Collection[T]() will create a new instance every time. On the other hand, Collection.empty[T] will most likely always return the same singleton object, usually defined somewhere as
object Empty extends Collection[Nothing] ...
which will be much faster. Edit: This is only possible for immutable collections, mutable collections have to return a new instance every time empty is called.
You should always prefer Collection.empty[Type].
In addition to Collection.empty[T] being clearer on the intent, you should favour it for the same reason that you should favour factory methods in general when instantiating a collection: because thoses factories abstract away some implementation details that you might not (or should not) care about.
By example, when you do Seq.empty[String] you actually get an instance of List[String]. You could directly instantiate a List[String] but if all you care about is to have some Seq you would introduce a needless dependency to List (well OK, actually you cannot as it stands, because List is already abstract, but let's pretend we can for the sake of the argument)
The whole point of factories is precisely to have some amount of separation of concern and not bother with unnecessary instantiation details.
As another more elaborate example, let's talk about collection.immutable.HashMap. This one is very much a concrete class so you might think there is no need for a factory here. Except that for optimization purpose the factory in the companion object collection.immutable.HashMap will actually create different sub-classes depending on the number of elements that you initialize the map with (see this question: Scala: how to make a Hash(Trie)Map from a Map (via Anorm in Play)). Obviously, if you directly instantiate collection.immutable.HashMap you will lose this optimization.
Another common optimization for empty is to always return (when it is an immutable collection) the same instance, yet another useful optimization that you would lose by directly instantiating the collection.
So as a rule of thumb, as far as you can you should use the factories that are provided by the various collection companion objects, so as to shield yourself from unneeded dependencies while at the same time benefiting from potential optimizations provided by the collection framework.
empty is just a special case of factory, and so the same logic applies.
I mean if there's some declarative way to prevent an object from changing any of it's members.
In the following example
class student(var name:String)
val s = new student("John")
"s" has been declared as a val, so it will always point to the same student.
But is there some way to prevent s.name from being changed by just declaring it like immutable???
Or the only solution is to declare everything as val, and manually force immutability?
No, it's not possible to declare something immutable. You have to enforce immutability yourself, by not allowing anyone to change it, that is remove all ways of modifying the class.
Someone can still modify it using reflection, but that's another story.
Scala doesn't enforce that, so there is no way to know. There is, however, an interesting compiler-plugin project named pusca (I guess it stands for Pure-Scala). Pure is defined there as not mutating a non-local variable and being side-effect free (e.g. not printing to the console)—so that calling a pure method repeatedly will always yield the same result (what is called referentially transparent).
I haven't tried out that plug-in myself, so I can't say if it's any stable or usable already.
There is no way that Scala could do this generally.
Consider the following hypothetical example:
class Student(var name : String, var course : Course)
def stuff(course : Course) {
magically_pure_val s = new Student("Fredzilla", course)
someFunctionOfStudent(s)
genericHigherOrderFunction(s, someFunctionOfStudent)
course.someMethod()
}
The pitfalls for any attempt to actually implement that magically_pure_val keyword are:
someFunctionOfStudent takes an arbitrary student, and isn't implemented in this compilation unit. It was written/compiled knowing that Student consists of two mutable fields. How do we know it doesn't actually mutate them?
genericHigherOrderFunction is even worse; it's going to take our Student and a function of Student, but it's written polymorphically. Whether or not it actually mutates s depends on what its other arguments are; determining that at compile time with full generality requires solving the Halting Problem.
Let's assume we could get around that (maybe we could set some secret flags that mean exceptions get raised if the s object is actually mutated, though personally I wouldn't find that good enough). What about that course field? Does course.someMethod() mutate it? That method call isn't invoked from s directly.
Worse than that, we only know that we'll have passed in an instance of Course or some subclass of Course. So even if we are able to analyze a particular implementation of Course and Course.someMethod and conclude that this is safe, someone can always add a new subclass of Course whose implementation of someMethod mutates the Course.
There's simply no way for the compiler to check that a given object cannot be mutated. The pusca plugin mentioned by 0__ appears to detect purity the same way Mercury does; by ensuring that every method is known from its signature to be either pure or impure, and by raising a compiler error if the implementation of anything declared to be pure does anything that could cause impurity (unless the programmer promises that the method is pure anyway).[1]
This is quite a different from simply declaring a value to be completely (and deeply) immutable and expecting the compiler to notice if any of the code that could touch it could mutate it. It's also not a perfect inference, just a conservative one
[1]The pusca README claims that it can infer impurity of methods whose last expression is a call to an impure method. I'm not quite sure how it can do this, as checking if that last expression is an impure call requires checking if it's calling a not-declared-impure method that should be declared impure by this rule, and the implementation might not be available to the compiler at that point (and indeed could be changed later even if it is). But all I've done is look at the README and think about it for a few minutes, so I might be missing something.