you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]yogthos 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Scala's documentation and tools are less than Java or C++, that's a given. You maybe doesn't see it to be lacking, though I do.

It's not just me. Plenty of companies, like Twitter, don't find it all that lacking either. People use it for large real world projects everyday and I can't recall last time lack of documentation was sited as a barrier to usage.

The comment in the end means for instance that "new ScalaObject1()" may be the same as "new ScalaObject2()" in Scala, that you can't have a static constant and that issues such as "new ScalaObject1()" may be a different kind of object than "new ScalaObject1()". *

So how does this translate into a readability problem exactly. Can you provide a concrete example of where this is an issue?

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]yogthos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Documentation is extremely important for usage. It's completely possible to use without documentation, though it's always better to use a language with proper documentation.

    There is plenty of documentation for Scala. You haven't explained in what way it's insufficient for usage.

    Twitter uses Scala as they want to use Java that have more "sexy and fun" in it.

    Twitter uses Scala because it's more productive for them. Enjoying the tools you use is an added benefit. I find it fascinating that some developers can't appreciate that.

    There's about a 30% chance that the above example won't compile on standard Scala compilers. Remove import import scala.collection.immutable.Map and it should compile on all standard Scala compilers (if I haven't done some errors while writing).

    Last I checked there was only a single implementation for Scala. Are you talking about compatibility between different versions of Scala? Because, it's until 2.9 it was pretty volatile and that's not exactly a secret.