When you use a language that has proper support for FP you won’t want to come back to Scala..
-
-
But you need to work, so the compromise is just fine with me.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @andyczerwonka @dadepo
You can work... in Haskell! If you absolutely need the jvm because you need spark or just your management lacks logical thinking, eta is extremely promising.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I’m the "management that lacks logical thinking"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
No, it’s a conscious decision. Finding people is also an issue. I think Haskell can work in some contexts, not in ours.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @andyczerwonka @dadepo
The mental overhead for FP in Scala is far greater than Haskell. Everything about writing FP in Scala is more complicated and I think I have a fair bit of experience with both to have the opinion of this being true.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
You are literally selecting for more complexity, higher compile times, second class FP support and a far less mature ecosystem. If you don’t write fp in Scala then this doesn’t apply to you, but if you do, it’s a worse decision in every way
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you can find people for FP in Scala, you can find them for Haskell. If you happen to not write fp in Scala, then everything I’ve said is moot because I’ve been specifically talking about FP in Scala vs Haskell, not “any Scala” vs Haskell
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I can evolve with Scala
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
No you can't. Nor can anyone. The evidence is all around you.
1:15 PM - 25 Dec 2018
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.