The Scala community

[flipped to bottom-posting]
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
> > For those who prefer forums, what's lacking with the google groups forum
> > view?
>

On Oct 6, 3:38 pm, Aleksey Nikiforov wrote:
> Mailing lists cannot be edited like forums. And it's impossible to delete
> anything. This adds more noise and makes it harder to moderate.
>
It is possible for Google Groups owners to delete messages.

Also, I see the Scala mailing lists reflected into these forums:
http://www.scala-lang.org/forum
Will posting to these forums go back to the mailing lists?
Mysteriously, I cannot find a link to these forums accessible from the
Scala mailing list page or elsewhere, so I'm not sure whether they are
deprecated or undesirable in some way.

Dan

Hi Kevin,

I always found the difference between scala-user and scala-language
confusing. I don't know if I ever posted to scala-language. I'd vote
for dropping that scala-language.

As for scala-basics versus scala-advanced, not sure, but I think it
doesn't feel reassuring to new users who are already coming to
scala-user to say "please go to scala-basics". If they took it there
to begin with that's fine, but to ask them to move sounds like an
insult. But asking someone who brings a category theory question to
scala-user it is not so rude to ask them to take it on scala-advanced.
Sounds more like a compliment. Another list that doesn't seem to get
used much honestly is scala-debate. Though if we create a basic or
advanced list we should probably keep debate around so we can go there
to discuss what should be on user versus the other one!

Bill

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Kevin Wright wrote:
> My theory is that we're looking to split at the wrong end of the spectrum.
> scala-internals and scala-debate are clearly for advanced topics and for
> people "working through" problems. Their names clearly disambiguate the sort
> of material you can expect to find there.
> At the other hand, we have scala-language and scala-user. From the names
> alone, it's *not* clear which of these should be targeted at newcomers and
> which is more general-purpose.  Perhaps one of these two lists should be
> deprecated, and scala-basics introduced instead.
> And yes, we should be directing folk towards StackOverflow whenever it makes
> sense to do so.  It's already proven itself time and time again as being a
> fantastic source of answers for the community, and seems to fill the hole
> that many are looking to fill with a forum.
>
> On 6 October 2011 22:50, Bill Venners wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Tom Switzer
>> wrote:
>> > I'm going to disagree. I really don't like the idea of separating
>> > scala-user
>> > out into 2 groups (beginner/advanced).
>> >
>> Actually I don't think its as much a beginner/advanced split as a
>> user/advanced. Advanced would just be a home for esoteric topics (the
>> kind that make Scala look hard to outsiders), user for everything
>> else. And this would be done for helping facilitate Scala adoption. If
>> you like the high end kind of discussion too could you not just join
>> both lists?
>>
>> We did already try this splitting-the-list concept with scala-debate,
>> though, and it didn't really work. I'm wondering if it is because
>> there's a difference between "debate" and "advanced." Sending someone
>> to debate is like saying, "would you guys please stop beating this
>> dead horse and get out of my bandwidth?" Asking someone to move over
>> to debate feels kind of rude. Whereas pointing a discussion to
>> advanced might feel more like a compliment. It may be that list
>> splitting just doesn't work, but if a scala-advanced list were created
>> I'd certainly join it.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> > First, I think scala-user just doesn't get the traffic to justify a
>> > split. I
>> > can spend 5 minute breaks here and there throughout the day reading this
>> > list and have no problem keeping caught up.
>> > I also think the idea of "beginner" questions is incredibly vague. I've
>> > learned a lot from the answers to rather simple questions on this list.
>> > A
>> > split would also mean that an otherwise smart and possibly helpful user
>> > may
>> > not see a question they can answer because they only subscribed to
>> > scala-advanced. And on the flip-side, the amount of traffic to
>> > scala-advanced may be so small that most folks just ignore it.
>> > As a long time user of mailing lists, I can usually gauge pretty well
>> > how
>> > "advanced" the question is by its subject. Even then, I think most
>> > people
>> > (myself included) would not be "scared" off a list because people were
>> > talking about advanced things; on the contrary, it may inspire more
>> > learning.
>> > Unless scala-user has a sudden surge in traffic, I think we can safely
>> > keep
>> > it as is.
>> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Bill Venners wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi All,
>> >>
>> >> New users come here to scala-users by and large, so I would vote for
>> >> creating a scala-advanced list and then encouraging the kinds of
>> >> "higher kinded" discussions that intimidate new users off of this list
>> >> and onto scala-advanced. It shouldn't offend anyone to ask them to
>> >> move something to an "advanced" list. Asking someone to move something
>> >> to debate doesn't feel the same. scala-debate to me feels like the
>> >> place to ship heated arguments that have gone on too long. Most of the
>> >> high end topics that get discussed here aren't heated debates, they
>> >> are just unhelpful (and to some extent discouraging) topics for new
>> >> users. They are important and useful for more advanced Scala folks,
>> >> who I don't think would at all mind joining a list called
>> >> scala-advanced.
>> >>
>> >> Bill
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Brian Smith
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > For those who prefer forums, what's lacking with the google groups
>> >> > forum
>> >> > view?
>> >> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/scala-user
>> >> > On 6 October 2011 17:00, Russel Winder wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The forum vs. email issue intrudes here.  There are people who like
>> >> >> forums and hate email lists and others who hate forums and demand
>> >> >> use
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> email lists.  A good community requires a system that satisfies both
>> >> >> varieties of people.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 08:47 -0700, Cay Horstmann wrote:
>> >> >> > I too would favor the move to a forum, but that may take some
>> >> >> > time. A
>> >> >> > scala-advanced list can be done quickly.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2011/10/6 Tim Pigden
>> >> >> >         Thinking about format - I reckon forums work better than
>> >> >> >         google groups
>> >> >> >         in this respect because you can have sticky stuff so
>> >> >> > newbies
>> >> >> >         will
>> >> >> >         always see the resource list, the faq list, the
>> >> >> > instructions
>> >> >> >         (please
>> >> >> >         use this list only for ...). Maybe this also works in
>> >> >> > google
>> >> >> >         groups
>> >> >> >         but it's not particularly obvious. Is there a particular
>> >> >> >         advantage in
>> >> >> >         google groups?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Russel.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> =============================================================================
>> >> >> Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip:
>> >> >> sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net
>> >> >> 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp:
>> >> >> russel@russel.org.uk
>> >> >> London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Bill Venners
>> >> Artima, Inc.
>> >> http://www.artima.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bill Venners
>> Artima, Inc.
>> http://www.artima.com
>
>
>

If we really want to different naming lists, then please name the “advanced” one in a way no beginner ever thinks about asking a question there, to reduce the amount of redirects between the lists.

Instead of “scala-advanced” I propose “scala-implicitkleislicomonad”

Imho this measure is simple and effective:When someone understands that the name is only a joke, he has already gained the knowledge level to ask a question there.

Okay, I'll roll with that.  How about:
scala-from-java (formerly scala-user)scala-languagescala-theory (formerly scala-debate)scala-internals
That drops debate (which perhaps sounds a bit confrontational, making people less likely to redirect threads there), and user (which was always a bit uncertain as to whether it should be more or less "advanced" than lang)
Instead, we get names more closely aligned with the types of post expected.


On 6 October 2011 23:27, Simon Ochsenreither <simon.ochsenreither@googlemail.com> wrote:

If we really want to different naming lists, then please name the “advanced” one in a way no beginner ever thinks about asking a question there, to reduce the amount of redirects between the lists.

Instead of “scala-advanced” I propose “scala-implicitkleislicomonad”

Imho this measure is simple and effective:When someone understands that the name is only a joke, he has already gained the knowledge level to ask a question there.

--
Kevin Wright
mail: kevin.wright@scalatechnology.com
gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wright@gmail.com quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wrightgoogle+: http://gplus.to/thecoda
kev.lee.wright@gmail.com twitter: @thecoda
vibe / skype: kev.lee.wrightsteam: kev_lee_wright
"My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra

As a Scala newbie, I did not expect that the libraries would be more java-like or less scala-like just for sake of easiness for the newcomer. What would be nice, though, if we could find a reference to which language features we should know in order to use most common libraries. When I see a complex method signature, I have no idea what it means and which terms to use for a search. I must be confess I don't feel comfortable asking that such beginner question in group with so high level discussions. I guess the suggestion for scala-practice sounds goods ( scala-from-java seems to leave out people from other language).

I think it's important to stress that there are also many people who will just be thankful to have gotten a correct answer in the thread which prompted this post. I know I was.

I appreciate for the person on the other end of Tony's wrath that it might not have been pleasant, but I don't think he was the only person at fault in the exchange(s) either and care should be taken that his message is not lost in the delivery. The mailing list is not Stack Overflow, you cannot be down-voted if you give a bad answer. If you rush to reply, yours is the message that people will see first and potentially the only message they read. Therefore there is a certain amount of responsibility here when you decide to type up a reply. It seems like if the only outcome of that thread is "Tony was at fault and he needs to change his approach and be more civil and then everything will be fine," you are simultaneously saying "it is better to be polite than right." Being that this group is a source of information, I think correctness is important and people should be encouraged to take his points on board and balance their eagerness to help people with being absolutely sure that they know what they're talking about.

I also do not like the idea to split up the mailing lists into beginner and advanced. The question which prompted all of this was, on the surface, a beginner question, and how many "advanced" Scala users learnt something? Quite a lot it seemed. As a complete beginner there is also significant value in just being exposed to more advanced concepts, a learning by proxy if you will. Even if it just to sews the seed of a new idea or advanced concepts, it can be extremely useful. I think a split would be damaging to the value of a beginner list, if all the experience minds took their interesting discussions and potentially more insightful replies elsewhere. 

On 07/10/2011 00:42, David McLaughlin wrote:

> you are simultaneously saying "it is better to be polite than right."

They aren't exclusive options.

Am 07.10.2011 02:05, schrieb Alan Burlison:
> On 07/10/2011 00:42, David McLaughlin wrote:
>
>> you are simultaneously saying "it is better to be polite than right."
>
> They aren't exclusive options.
>
scala-user-polite@googlegroups.com ;)

OMG you people are sure vocal - less than 24 hours and I cannot keep up
with it all.

Personally I find there is too much stuff on scala-user that is 'WAY
over my head' but is it interesting to learn how much I do not understand.

There is too much stuff on scala-user that should be on scala-debate
(that I also read).

Please just keep scala-user for newbies and innocent questions. Please
be kind and patient to people on scala-user. Please direct people to
scala-debate for more serious stuff. If I am stupid enough to say
something on scala-debate please feel free to flame on at me as much as
you want - I already know I am in the deep end of the intelligence pool :-)

Cheers, Eric

On 07/10/11 15:14, Eric Kolotyluk wrote:
> I already know I am in the deep end of the intelligence pool

No you're not. Don't let the bullies who are obsessed with perceived
intelligence convince you otherwise. Struggle on.

On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 15:18 +1000, Tony Morris wrote:
> On 07/10/11 15:14, Eric Kolotyluk wrote:
> > I already know I am in the deep end of the intelligence pool
>
> No you're not. Don't let the bullies who are obsessed with perceived
> intelligence convince you otherwise. Struggle on.

+10^10^2

On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:18 AM, Bill Venners wrote:

I always found the difference between scala-user and scala-language
confusing. I don't know if I ever posted to scala-language. I'd vote
for dropping that scala-language.

+1
Heiko

I post on scala-language questions about the language specification
(the why questions)
I post on scala-user the programming questions (the how questions)
I think that scala-debate is more a chitchat forum about programming
but not necessarily searching for a real solution.
Scala-tools is about the tools of Scala like IDE, text editors,
Scala.NET
And scala-internals is more compiler/parser internals so bytecode and
optimizations,compiler plugins and so on.

I think scala-xml can be dropped since it is not in use and it is
unnecessary to have a separate forum for a library package(there is no
scala-actor scala-swing forum either, this can be posted on scala-user
or scala-advanced)

I support a scala-advanced forum/mailinglist (for FP, (origami) design
patterns, data-generic programming, meta-programming), typical native
Scala solutions, solutions out of your comfort zone, then scala-user
can be exclusively used for newbie/stackoverflow-like questions and
programmers who are using Scala for its conciseness and expressiveness
and are (at the moment) not interested for solutions out of their
comfort zone.

I really like the way the Haskell MLs are organized and named
(http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Mailing_lists) and thus propose "scala-announce"
for announcements, "scala-cafe" for all kinds of questions and discussions
(subsuming much of scala-user and possibly all of scala-debate),
"scala-beginners" for ... well... beginners. That is, IF the current ML layout
is under discussion at all.
 
Kind regards
Andreas 

On 06/10/2011 11:21, Detering Dirk wrote:
> Thank you, Martin, for this reprehension which indeed should be
> taken seriously. Everyone should meditate by himself about what
> that could mean for him.
>
> [...]
> The statement, that the effort to learn Scala does not pay back simply
> is wrong. Learning Scala indeed changed the way I look on my own Java
> code, approach problems and structure my solutions.
> I feel like I did not simply "learn" Scala but much more "studied" it
> to get there, and I am not finished!
>
> Once again, yes community, watch your attitudes, but I could not let
> that original post stand uncommented.

Thank you really much for your mail, that thread was starting to make me
sad (I discovered it an hour ago, that's a bunch a things to read).

I also recognized what you are living with my own experience 4 years
ago, and so my fear that the Scala community, that I found at the time
so helpful and bright and open-midding has so much radically changed. So
now, I know that it's just that their more people comming with different
expectation that what mine and seems to be yours.

I also see a bunch of people full of ideas about how to handle these new
kinds of people, and since it seems that they are more likelly than us
to understand what they expect, why they don't just do something ? If a
forum is such a necessity for these newcomer, well, why not just set-up
one and handle it as they think it should be ? I know for sure that I
can't be the good person for such a task, because I don't see the point
to forum. And I believe that most old people of that list are more or
less in the same un-understanding about that - that's just not how our
brain works.

Thanks,

On 06/10/2011 15:04, eptx wrote:
> Thank you for sharing this valuable feedback Martin. A few thoughts to
> help:
> [...]
> 2) A helpful way to change culture is to recognize those who exhibit
> the "good" behavior. There are many on this list, Stack Overflow, and
> dozens of Scala lists that are both very bright *and* very helpful to
> beginners. Who are the top 10?

That's strange, because for me, Tony and Paulp would be up in that top
10: they make me learn *a lot* of things. But it seems that their way of
answering is disliked by most. Well, they were not the only one, and
other people like Daniel Sobral or Meredith Gregory were also very very
helpful.

Perhaps there is *also* a problem with they way questions are asked, and
answer are heard (and studied). Well, all that to say: you can't just
ask people who spent their time trying to help other people to be nice
and kind and etc if people who asked question dismiss answer because
they don't want to invest some time to understand what is said, the
contracts must be on both parts.

Thanks,

On 06/10/2011 21:31, Brian Clapper wrote:
> How is a forum materially different from what Google Groups already provides?

Among other things, a more uniform (default) style (I dislike HTML e-mails with abuse of
styles, although one can go crazy with BBCode...), the capability to edit to remove typos
or stupid things, the capability to moderate and remove spam or off-topic messages, and
for the scrupulous, to move topics between sections (eg. from scala-debate to
scala-language for a real technical question, or from scala-language to scala-users for a
naive, simple question, or questions about IDEs to scala-tools, etc.).

One nice thing, in well made forums, is to memorize which topics you have read: you can
start reading at work, and resume at home. When doing that with the mailing lists, I have
to go from thread mode to chronological mode (in Thunderbird), select a time range and
mark as read.

But I do appreciate mailing lists as well: messages coming to you even if you don't do
anything, automatically archived, fast interface (when Thunderbird doesn't fetch new
messages. They don't know about threading?) with keyboard shortcuts, etc.
Different interfaces, different ways of doing things.

On 06/10/2011 20:12, Russel Winder wrote:
>> I believe forums are well suited to beginners (easy to search/read old threads, more
>> familiar interface, etc.) while MLs are more used by seasoned users.
>> Of course, this categorization isn't absolute!
>
> I am not sure I agree with that categorization, but I do agree that
> there are two camps that both need to be handled, and GetSatisfaction
> clearly does not satisfy.

Of course, it is quite arbitrary, mostly based on my experience in AutoHotkey and
Processing forums (frequented enough to get the status of moderator on them...) vs. my
reading of Scintilla/SciTE, Lua, Bazaar, Scala-* & Gradle mailing lists, among others.
I also saw this debate on the Lua mailing list...

Both Lua and Scala have forums already (someone mentioned http://scala-forum.org/ in
scala-debate), but they don't seem to attract many people...

I like scala-theory. Here is my forked modifications.

scala-debate
scala-answers (formerly scala-user)
scala-theory (formerly scala-lang)
scala-internals
scala-rejects (formerly scala-xml)


On 7 October 2011 00:49, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wright@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, I'll roll with that.  How about:
scala-from-java (formerly scala-user)scala-languagescala-theory (formerly scala-debate)scala-internals
That drops debate (which perhaps sounds a bit confrontational, making people less likely to redirect threads there), and user (which was always a bit uncertain as to whether it should be more or less "advanced" than lang)
Instead, we get names more closely aligned with the types of post expected.


On 6 October 2011 23:27, Simon Ochsenreither <simon.ochsenreither@googlemail.com> wrote:

If we really want to different naming lists, then please name the “advanced” one in a way no beginner ever thinks about asking a question there, to reduce the amount of redirects between the lists.

Instead of “scala-advanced” I propose “scala-implicitkleislicomonad”

Imho this measure is simple and effective:When someone understands that the name is only a joke, he has already gained the knowledge level to ask a question there.

--
Kevin Wright
mail: kevin.wright@scalatechnology.com
gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wright@gmail.com quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wrightgoogle+: http://gplus.to/thecoda
kev.lee.wright@gmail.com twitter: @thecoda
vibe / skype: kev.lee.wrightsteam: kev_lee_wright
"My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra

Another forum advantage is a capability to create and modify forums
(categories and subcategories) at any time and at any level of
refinement without affecting forum members at all. Of course it is
possible to subscribe to concrete forum (category), not to concrete
thread only.

We don't need all these long discussions about MLs' naming at all
would we have official forum ;-)

On Friday 07 October 2011 17:08:07 Trond Olsen wrote:
> I like scala-theory. Here is my forked modifications.
>
> scala-debate
> scala-answers (formerly scala-user)
> scala-theory (formerly scala-lang)
> scala-internals
> scala-rejects (formerly scala-xml)
>
>
> On 7 October 2011 00:49, Kevin Wright wrote:
>
> > Okay, I'll roll with that. How about:
> >
> > scala-from-java (formerly scala-user)
> > scala-language
> > scala-theory (formerly scala-debate)
> > scala-internals
> >
> > That drops debate (which perhaps sounds a bit confrontational, making
> > people less likely to redirect threads there), and user (which was always a
> > bit uncertain as to whether it should be more or less "advanced" than lang)
> >
> > Instead, we get names more closely aligned with the types of post expected.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6 October 2011 23:27, Simon Ochsenreither <
> > simon.ochsenreither@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If we really want to different naming lists, then please name the
> >> “advanced” one in a way no beginner ever thinks about asking a question
> >> there, to reduce the amount of redirects between the lists.
> >>
> >> Instead of “scala-advanced” I propose “scala-implicitkleislicomonad”
> >>
> >> Imho this measure is simple and effective:When someone understands that
> >> the name is only a joke, he has already gained the knowledge level to ask a
> >> question there.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kevin Wright
> > mail: kevin.wright@scalatechnology.com
> > gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wright@gmail.com
> > quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright
> > google+: http://gplus.to/thecoda
> >
> > twitter: @thecoda
> > vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright
> > steam: kev_lee_wright
> >
> > "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not
> > regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current
> > conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of
> > the ledger" ~ Dijkstra
> >
> >

<irony>
How about...
scala-is-not-enough-like-my-favourite-blub-languagescala-this-is-where-most-questions-should-goscala-questionably-related-tangents scala-tonyclonesscala-internalsscala-mailing-list-name-discussions
:)
</irony>

On 7 October 2011 16:08, Trond Olsen <trond@steinbit.org> wrote:

I like scala-theory. Here is my forked modifications.

scala-debate
scala-answers (formerly scala-user)
scala-theory (formerly scala-lang)
scala-internals
scala-rejects (formerly scala-xml)


On 7 October 2011 00:49, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wright@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, I'll roll with that.  How about:
scala-from-java (formerly scala-user)scala-languagescala-theory (formerly scala-debate)scala-internals
That drops debate (which perhaps sounds a bit confrontational, making people less likely to redirect threads there), and user (which was always a bit uncertain as to whether it should be more or less "advanced" than lang)
Instead, we get names more closely aligned with the types of post expected.


On 6 October 2011 23:27, Simon Ochsenreither <simon.ochsenreither@googlemail.com> wrote:

If we really want to different naming lists, then please name the “advanced” one in a way no beginner ever thinks about asking a question there, to reduce the amount of redirects between the lists.

Instead of “scala-advanced” I propose “scala-implicitkleislicomonad”

Imho this measure is simple and effective:When someone understands that the name is only a joke, he has already gained the knowledge level to ask a question there.

I agree with some of what the poster (not Martin, the other guy) says, and disagree with some of it. First, some general comments
    1) I have _never_ liked the names of the various scala groups. They were confusing to me when I came in, and are still confusing, the the same manner, to newcomers. Seriously, how should it be obvious that "scala-lang" is a "more advanced" group than "scala-user"? Thank goodness we at least have a separate "scalaz". My suggestions:          - scala-newcomer          - scala-user          - scala-typing          - scala-development
And on the IDE from, please change "scala-ide" to "scala-eclipse" OR allow it to function as its name promises, and discussion forum for Scala and IDEs.

On Thursday, October 6, 2011 2:56:41 AM UTC-5, martin wrote:

Here's a recent mail on reddit, which we should take very seriously.

I agree with the points in the mail. I think the community has a major job to do to help people get into the language instead being obscure and riding academic high horses.

I would like to start with this list. Please everyone, remember: This list is for helping people getting into Scala and getting their questions answered. That's the primary purpose of scala-user. If you are after intellectual arguments, no problem, but please use scala-debate. If you want to force an intellectual argument on a newbie that asked a simple question, that's just bad style.

Thanks

 -- Martin

=======================================================================

I tried to use Scala, and found it has one major disadvantage going for it, the community.

Most of the developers for Scala and community members I interacted with were very focused on being right from a computer science perspective, and from their own view on how things should be done. They were not at all focused on helping developers actually get work done. This extended to the libraries that come with Scala. If they didn't like how you did something, they made the libraries much harder to accomplish that task with. As an example, appending to a list requires a rather cryptic syntax (myList :::= "something").

I've found that somewhat true, but not to the extent of the writer. 

Along with that, Scala seems to be in love with symbols. They use them everywhere, and many times portions of the syntax are optional, so you can see different incarnations of the same syntax look very different in different places.

Point out that symbols are used (fairly) consistently, and are in the Scaladoc. 

Also Scala has a very high learning curve for traditional Java developers. Instead of making this curve workable by gradually introducing developers to advanced features, the Scala libraries and all it's documentation force you to see all the concepts all at once. They often do a very poor job of explaining why they force you to do things their way, and just tell you to do them.

Well, I've given a number of informal presentations to Java devs, and always start with showing how a Scala def of a Complex type can vastly reduce boilerplate, and then present one or two simply examples of Scala typing to take the fear out of it :-). Again, I think this would be solved by have a "scala-newcomers" groups. 

While the Scala language technically lets you program in a way similar to Java, but with advanced features as needed, the libraries are written in a way to make this nearly impossible. 

I don't really know where that complaint comes from. It wasn't my experience. 

What all this means is that a developer from any traditional OOP language, or less complex language is going to have a very very hard time learning Scala, and in the end the time you lost learning won't make up for any advantage Scala's 'way' provides.

Partially disagree. It's very easy to learn to use Scala like Java. More difficult to learn the more advance stuff (no surprise), but that's a reason for user groups at various levels. 

As long as the Scala community is so obtuse and focused on being right their way, as opposed to helping developers get into the language, Scala will remain a nitch language.

This is true for some developers, but I certainly haven't found it true for most. 

By the way, I checked List and counted 10 methods with symbols (one
mixed, 9 purely symbolic) out of almost 150 methods, not counting
overloads.

So the accusation of being operator-happy is hardly accurate.

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 15:31, Ken McDonald wrote:
> I agree with some of what the poster (not Martin, the other guy) says, and
> disagree with some of it. First, some general comments
>     1) I have _never_ liked the names of the various scala groups. They were
> confusing to me when I came in, and are still confusing, the the same
> manner, to newcomers. Seriously, how should it be obvious that "scala-lang"
> is a "more advanced" group than "scala-user"? Thank goodness we at least
> have a separate "scalaz". My suggestions:
>           - scala-newcomer
>           - scala-user
>           - scala-typing
>           - scala-development
> And on the IDE from, please change "scala-ide" to "scala-eclipse" OR allow
> it to function as its name promises, and discussion forum for Scala and
> IDEs.
>
> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 2:56:41 AM UTC-5, martin wrote:
>>
>> Here's a recent mail on reddit, which we should take very seriously.
>>
>> I agree with the points in the mail. I think the community has a major job
>> to do to help people get into the language instead being obscure and riding
>> academic high horses.
>>
>> I would like to start with this list. Please everyone, remember: This list
>> is for helping people getting into Scala and getting their questions
>> answered. That's the primary purpose of scala-user. If you are after
>> intellectual arguments, no problem, but please use scala-debate. If you want
>> to force an intellectual argument on a newbie that asked a simple question,
>> that's just bad style.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>  -- Martin
>>
>> =======================================================================
>>
>> I tried to use Scala, and found it has one major disadvantage going for
>> it, the community.
>>
>> Most of the developers for Scala and community members I interacted with
>> were very focused on being right from a computer science perspective, and
>> from their own view on how things should be done. They were not at all
>> focused on helping developers actually get work done. This extended to the
>> libraries that come with Scala. If they didn't like how you did something,
>> they made the libraries much harder to accomplish that task with. As an
>> example, appending to a list requires a rather cryptic syntax (myList :::=
>> "something").
>
> I've found that somewhat true, but not to the extent of the writer.
>
>>
>> Along with that, Scala seems to be in love with symbols. They use them
>> everywhere, and many times portions of the syntax are optional, so you can
>> see different incarnations of the same syntax look very different in
>> different places.
>
> Point out that symbols are used (fairly) consistently, and are in the
> Scaladoc.
>
>>
>> Also Scala has a very high learning curve for traditional Java developers.
>> Instead of making this curve workable by gradually introducing developers to
>> advanced features, the Scala libraries and all it's documentation force you
>> to see all the concepts all at once. They often do a very poor job of
>> explaining why they force you to do things their way, and just tell you to
>> do them.
>
> Well, I've given a number of informal presentations to Java devs, and always
> start with showing how a Scala def of a Complex type can vastly reduce
> boilerplate, and then present one or two simply examples of Scala typing to
> take the fear out of it :-). Again, I think this would be solved by have a
> "scala-newcomers" groups.
>>
>> While the Scala language technically lets you program in a way similar to
>> Java, but with advanced features as needed, the libraries are written in a
>> way to make this nearly impossible.
>
> I don't really know where that complaint comes from. It wasn't my
> experience.
>
>>
>> What all this means is that a developer from any traditional OOP language,
>> or less complex language is going to have a very very hard time learning
>> Scala, and in the end the time you lost learning won't make up for any
>> advantage Scala's 'way' provides.
>
> Partially disagree. It's very easy to learn to use Scala like Java. More
> difficult to learn the more advance stuff (no surprise), but that's a reason
> for user groups at various levels.
>
>>
>> As long as the Scala community is so obtuse and focused on being right
>> their way, as opposed to helping developers get into the language, Scala
>> will remain a nitch language.
>
> This is true for some developers, but I certainly haven't found it true for
> most.

On 08/10/2011 20:31, Ken McDonald wrote:
> 1) I have _never_ liked the names of the various scala groups. They were
> confusing to me when I came in, and are still confusing, the the same
> manner, to newcomers. Seriously, how should it be obvious that
> "scala-lang" is a "more advanced" group than "scala-user"?

Looked quite obvious the first time I came across them. But then again,
I see some newbies questions in scala-language, so I agree it might not
be so obvious to everybody.

> My suggestions:
> - scala-newcomer

Too restrictive

> - scala-user

Too generic: everybody is a Scala user, including M. Odersky, Phillips, etc.

> - scala-typing

Everybody type on a keyboard to write Scala code, no?
Ah, as in type system? Isn't it too restrictive? You use types everywhere.

> - scala-development

Ambiguous. Everybody (in the community) do development with Scala. If
that's Scala language (compiler) development, it should be more
explicit. At least Scala implementation(s) is clear.

ding ding, round two!
scala-basicsFormerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of suitable replies.
scala-languageAs opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theoryFor asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debateUnchanged
scala-internalsUnchanged



On 9 October 2011 10:26, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@gmx.net> wrote:

On 08/10/2011 20:31, Ken McDonald wrote:

1) I have _never_ liked the names of the various scala groups. They were
confusing to me when I came in, and are still confusing, the the same
manner, to newcomers. Seriously, how should it be obvious that
"scala-lang" is a "more advanced" group than "scala-user"?

Looked quite obvious the first time I came across them. But then again, I see some newbies questions in scala-language, so I agree it might not be so obvious to everybody.

My suggestions:
- scala-newcomer

Too restrictive

- scala-user

Too generic: everybody is a Scala user, including M. Odersky, Phillips, etc.

- scala-typing

Everybody type on a keyboard to write Scala code, no?
Ah, as in type system? Isn't it too restrictive? You use types everywhere.

- scala-development

Ambiguous. Everybody (in the community) do development with Scala. If that's Scala language (compiler) development, it should be more explicit. At least Scala implementation(s) is clear.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Wright wrote:
>
> ding ding, round two!
> scala-basics
> Formerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and
> again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers
> for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of
> suitable replies.
> scala-language
> As opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
> scala-theory
> For asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider
> this to be an "advanced" group!
> scala-debate
> Unchanged
> scala-internals
> Unchanged
>

I think we'll just leave it for now. Not to say that some other
categoization does not have merit, but every change comes with a high
cost, and I do not see sufficient advantages to balance the
inconveniences of changing things around.

We should come back to this matter if/when traffic on scala-user
starts to become unmanagable. Right now we have not yet reached this
point, IMO.

Cheers

On 09/10/2011 14:03, martin odersky wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Wright wrote:
>> ding ding, round two!
>> scala-basics
>> Formerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and
>> again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers
>> for the first time. It also serves as an indication for the nature of
>> suitable replies.
>> scala-language
>> As opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
>> scala-theory
>> For asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider
>> this to be an "advanced" group!
>> scala-debate
>> Unchanged
>> scala-internals
>> Unchanged

Not bad.

> I think we'll just leave it for now. Not to say that some other
> categoization does not have merit, but every change comes with a high
> cost, and I do not see sufficient advantages to balance the
> inconveniences of changing things around.
>
> We should come back to this matter if/when traffic on scala-user
> starts to become unmanagable. Right now we have not yet reached this
> point, IMO.

Perhaps slightly improve the descriptions of the lists, to discourage
newbies question in scala-language. Moving up the scala-user was already
a good idea, anyway. And one advantage of this name is that it is quite
common in the mailing list world (that, and -general).

Dear Scalarazzi,
i would like to state as plainly as possible, theory is not necessarily "advanced." In many ways theory is less advanced than pragmatic programming because it removes much of the complexity of real world situations and considers models, toys, abstractions, etc. The demands on attention are lesser, not greater. This is the point of theory!
From another perspective, what you get exposed to early will seem simple and what you get exposed to later will seem more complex. i've made it a point to expose youngsters to theoretical computing and abstract mathematics and have had excellent results. i've taught 13 yrs olds both Milner's π-calculus and the lambda calculus. i've taught 4th and 5th graders the essence of Conway Games. Just last spring i had a little 4th grade girl go up to the board and do calculations with infinitary games. They don't come with preconceptions that it's "hard" or "advanced" and i don't tell them that it is and they find their way in -- because wonder at the beauty of the order of the world and desire to engage it is our birthright.
People who come to Scala come because they are seeking a better way to engage their computational work. They have a clue that Scala is organized around different principles. It is insulting to human beings and our potential to exclude discussion of those principles -- especially so that these seekers can judge for themselves whether or not those principles and their particular application in Scala provide a useful organization of computation. The current discussion sometimes reminds me of a certain large software company in Redmond, WA, profiling their market in terms of "Mort" the programmer, who is clueless in a not particularly useful way. Please don't Mort-ify the beginning (Scala) programmer.
Being a Beginner is in no way a statement about intelligence, capability, endurance, strength of will, etc. It's merely a statement about where one is in a process. Maintaining the qualities of a Beginner, including openness to new ideas, willingness to listen, willingness to ask for help, willingness to revisit assumptions, is something i strive to do and that sort of perpetual cluelessness is not only useful in practical programming, it turns out it is at the heart of mathematics. The mathematician strives to maintain naivety. And, if you look around, not just the mathematician, but anyone who wants to go deeper. i submit we want to encourage a Scala community of people who are supported to go deeper.
Best wishes,
--greg

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@gmx.net> wrote:

On 09/10/2011 14:03, martin odersky wrote:

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Wright<kev.lee.wright@gmail.com>  wrote:

ding ding, round two!
scala-basics
Formerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and
again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers
for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of
suitable replies.
scala-language
As opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theory
For asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider
this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debate
Unchanged
scala-internals
Unchanged

Not bad.

I think we'll just leave it for now. Not to say that some other
categoization does not have merit, but every change comes with a high
cost, and I do not see sufficient advantages to balance the
inconveniences of changing things around.

We should come back to this matter if/when traffic on scala-user
starts to become unmanagable. Right now we have not yet reached this
point, IMO.

Perhaps slightly improve the descriptions of the lists, to discourage newbies question in scala-language. Moving up the scala-user was already a good idea, anyway. And one advantage of this name is that it is quite common in the mailing list world (that, and -general).

Dear Scalarazzi,
i would like to state as plainly as possible, theory is not necessarily "advanced." In many ways theory is less advanced than pragmatic programming because it removes much of the complexity of real world situations and considers models, toys, abstractions, etc. The demands on attention are lesser, not greater. This is the point of theory!
From another perspective, what you get exposed to early will seem simple and what you get exposed to later will seem more complex. i've made it a point to expose youngsters to theoretical computing and abstract mathematics and have had excellent results. i've taught 13 yrs olds both Milner's π-calculus and the lambda calculus. i've taught 4th and 5th graders the essence of Conway Games. Just last spring i had a little 4th grade girl go up to the board and do calculations with infinitary games. They don't come with preconceptions that it's "hard" or "advanced" and i don't tell them that it is and they find their way in -- because wonder at the beauty of the order of the world and desire to engage it is our birthright.
People who come to Scala come because they are seeking a better way to engage their computational work. They have a clue that Scala is organized around different principles. It is insulting to human beings and our potential to exclude discussion of those principles -- especially so that these seekers can judge for themselves whether or not those principles and their particular application in Scala provide a useful organization of computation. The current discussion sometimes reminds me of a certain large software company in Redmond, WA, profiling their market in terms of "Mort" the programmer, who is clueless in a not particularly useful way. Please don't Mort-ify the beginning (Scala) programmer.
Being a Beginner is in no way a statement about intelligence, capability, endurance, strength of will, etc. It's merely a statement about where one is in a process. Maintaining the qualities of a Beginner, including openness to new ideas, willingness to listen, willingness to ask for help, willingness to revisit assumptions, is something i strive to do and that sort of perpetual cluelessness is not only useful in practical programming, it turns out it is at the heart of mathematics. The mathematician strives to maintain naivety. And, if you look around, not just the mathematician, but anyone who wants to go deeper. i submit we want to encourage a Scala community of people who are supported to go deeper.
Best wishes,
--greg

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@gmx.net> wrote:

On 09/10/2011 14:03, martin odersky wrote:

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Wright<kev.lee.wright@gmail.com>  wrote:

ding ding, round two!
scala-basics
Formerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and
again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers
for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of
suitable replies.
scala-language
As opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theory
For asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider
this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debate
Unchanged
scala-internals
Unchanged

Not bad.

I think we'll just leave it for now. Not to say that some other
categoization does not have merit, but every change comes with a high
cost, and I do not see sufficient advantages to balance the
inconveniences of changing things around.

We should come back to this matter if/when traffic on scala-user
starts to become unmanagable. Right now we have not yet reached this
point, IMO.

Perhaps slightly improve the descriptions of the lists, to discourage newbies question in scala-language. Moving up the scala-user was already a good idea, anyway. And one advantage of this name is that it is quite common in the mailing list world (that, and -general).

That's why I suggested scala-theory and not scala-advanced, the connotations are very different...
In practice though, I'd anticipate a theory group to attract more advanced questions :)


On 9 October 2011 16:49, Meredith Gregory <lgreg.meredith@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Scalarazzi,
i would like to state as plainly as possible, theory is not necessarily "advanced." In many ways theory is less advanced than pragmatic programming because it removes much of the complexity of real world situations and considers models, toys, abstractions, etc. The demands on attention are lesser, not greater. This is the point of theory!
From another perspective, what you get exposed to early will seem simple and what you get exposed to later will seem more complex. i've made it a point to expose youngsters to theoretical computing and abstract mathematics and have had excellent results. i've taught 13 yrs olds both Milner's π-calculus and the lambda calculus. i've taught 4th and 5th graders the essence of Conway Games. Just last spring i had a little 4th grade girl go up to the board and do calculations with infinitary games. They don't come with preconceptions that it's "hard" or "advanced" and i don't tell them that it is and they find their way in -- because wonder at the beauty of the order of the world and desire to engage it is our birthright.
People who come to Scala come because they are seeking a better way to engage their computational work. They have a clue that Scala is organized around different principles. It is insulting to human beings and our potential to exclude discussion of those principles -- especially so that these seekers can judge for themselves whether or not those principles and their particular application in Scala provide a useful organization of computation. The current discussion sometimes reminds me of a certain large software company in Redmond, WA, profiling their market in terms of "Mort" the programmer, who is clueless in a not particularly useful way. Please don't Mort-ify the beginning (Scala) programmer.
Being a Beginner is in no way a statement about intelligence, capability, endurance, strength of will, etc. It's merely a statement about where one is in a process. Maintaining the qualities of a Beginner, including openness to new ideas, willingness to listen, willingness to ask for help, willingness to revisit assumptions, is something i strive to do and that sort of perpetual cluelessness is not only useful in practical programming, it turns out it is at the heart of mathematics. The mathematician strives to maintain naivety. And, if you look around, not just the mathematician, but anyone who wants to go deeper. i submit we want to encourage a Scala community of people who are supported to go deeper.
Best wishes,
--greg

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@gmx.net> wrote:

On 09/10/2011 14:03, martin odersky wrote:

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Wright<kev.lee.wright@gmail.com>  wrote:

ding ding, round two!
scala-basics
Formerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and
again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers
for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of
suitable replies.
scala-language
As opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theory
For asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider
this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debate
Unchanged
scala-internals
Unchanged

Not bad.

I think we'll just leave it for now. Not to say that some other
categoization does not have merit, but every change comes with a high
cost, and I do not see sufficient advantages to balance the
inconveniences of changing things around.

We should come back to this matter if/when traffic on scala-user
starts to become unmanagable. Right now we have not yet reached this
point, IMO.

Perhaps slightly improve the descriptions of the lists, to discourage newbies question in scala-language. Moving up the scala-user was already a good idea, anyway. And one advantage of this name is that it is quite common in the mailing list world (that, and -general).

That's why I suggested scala-theory and not scala-advanced, the connotations are very different...
In practice though, I'd anticipate a theory group to attract more advanced questions :)


On 9 October 2011 16:49, Meredith Gregory <lgreg.meredith@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Scalarazzi,
i would like to state as plainly as possible, theory is not necessarily "advanced." In many ways theory is less advanced than pragmatic programming because it removes much of the complexity of real world situations and considers models, toys, abstractions, etc. The demands on attention are lesser, not greater. This is the point of theory!
From another perspective, what you get exposed to early will seem simple and what you get exposed to later will seem more complex. i've made it a point to expose youngsters to theoretical computing and abstract mathematics and have had excellent results. i've taught 13 yrs olds both Milner's π-calculus and the lambda calculus. i've taught 4th and 5th graders the essence of Conway Games. Just last spring i had a little 4th grade girl go up to the board and do calculations with infinitary games. They don't come with preconceptions that it's "hard" or "advanced" and i don't tell them that it is and they find their way in -- because wonder at the beauty of the order of the world and desire to engage it is our birthright.
People who come to Scala come because they are seeking a better way to engage their computational work. They have a clue that Scala is organized around different principles. It is insulting to human beings and our potential to exclude discussion of those principles -- especially so that these seekers can judge for themselves whether or not those principles and their particular application in Scala provide a useful organization of computation. The current discussion sometimes reminds me of a certain large software company in Redmond, WA, profiling their market in terms of "Mort" the programmer, who is clueless in a not particularly useful way. Please don't Mort-ify the beginning (Scala) programmer.
Being a Beginner is in no way a statement about intelligence, capability, endurance, strength of will, etc. It's merely a statement about where one is in a process. Maintaining the qualities of a Beginner, including openness to new ideas, willingness to listen, willingness to ask for help, willingness to revisit assumptions, is something i strive to do and that sort of perpetual cluelessness is not only useful in practical programming, it turns out it is at the heart of mathematics. The mathematician strives to maintain naivety. And, if you look around, not just the mathematician, but anyone who wants to go deeper. i submit we want to encourage a Scala community of people who are supported to go deeper.
Best wishes,
--greg

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@gmx.net> wrote:

On 09/10/2011 14:03, martin odersky wrote:

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Wright<kev.lee.wright@gmail.com>  wrote:

ding ding, round two!
scala-basics
Formerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and
again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers
for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of
suitable replies.
scala-language
As opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theory
For asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider
this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debate
Unchanged
scala-internals
Unchanged

Not bad.

I think we'll just leave it for now. Not to say that some other
categoization does not have merit, but every change comes with a high
cost, and I do not see sufficient advantages to balance the
inconveniences of changing things around.

We should come back to this matter if/when traffic on scala-user
starts to become unmanagable. Right now we have not yet reached this
point, IMO.

Perhaps slightly improve the descriptions of the lists, to discourage newbies question in scala-language. Moving up the scala-user was already a good idea, anyway. And one advantage of this name is that it is quite common in the mailing list world (that, and -general).

I'm not sure how this discussion ended up in ninety messages discussing new names for mailing-lists.
Martin's original email and the message he quoted have *nothing* to do with mailing-lists. It was about attitudes, personalities and the general atmosphere of the Scala community.
-- Cédric




On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wright@gmail.com> wrote:

ding ding, round two!
scala-basicsFormerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of suitable replies.
scala-languageAs opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theoryFor asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debateUnchanged
scala-internalsUnchanged



On 9 October 2011 10:26, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@gmx.net> wrote:

On 08/10/2011 20:31, Ken McDonald wrote:

1) I have _never_ liked the names of the various scala groups. They were
confusing to me when I came in, and are still confusing, the the same
manner, to newcomers. Seriously, how should it be obvious that
"scala-lang" is a "more advanced" group than "scala-user"?

Looked quite obvious the first time I came across them. But then again, I see some newbies questions in scala-language, so I agree it might not be so obvious to everybody.

My suggestions:
- scala-newcomer

Too restrictive

- scala-user

Too generic: everybody is a Scala user, including M. Odersky, Phillips, etc.

- scala-typing

Everybody type on a keyboard to write Scala code, no?
Ah, as in type system? Isn't it too restrictive? You use types everywhere.

- scala-development

Ambiguous. Everybody (in the community) do development with Scala. If that's Scala language (compiler) development, it should be more explicit. At least Scala implementation(s) is clear.

To quote:

"I would like to start with this list. Please everyone, remember: This list is for helping people getting into Scala and getting their questions answered. That's the primary purpose of scala-user. If you are after intellectual arguments, no problem, but please use scala-debate."

The discussion then quickly honed in of the fact that, maybe, part of the issue is that the selection of lists available (and their names) don't give a particularly clear indication as to what content is expected - especially on scala-user and scala-lang.


2011/10/9 Cédric Beust ♔ <cedric@beust.com>

I'm not sure how this discussion ended up in ninety messages discussing new names for mailing-lists.
Martin's original email and the message he quoted have *nothing* to do with mailing-lists. It was about attitudes, personalities and the general atmosphere of the Scala community.
-- Cédric




On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wright@gmail.com> wrote:

ding ding, round two!
scala-basicsFormerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of suitable replies.
scala-languageAs opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theoryFor asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debateUnchanged
scala-internalsUnchanged



On 9 October 2011 10:26, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@gmx.net> wrote:

On 08/10/2011 20:31, Ken McDonald wrote:

1) I have _never_ liked the names of the various scala groups. They were
confusing to me when I came in, and are still confusing, the the same
manner, to newcomers. Seriously, how should it be obvious that
"scala-lang" is a "more advanced" group than "scala-user"?

Looked quite obvious the first time I came across them. But then again, I see some newbies questions in scala-language, so I agree it might not be so obvious to everybody.

My suggestions:
- scala-newcomer

Too restrictive

- scala-user

Too generic: everybody is a Scala user, including M. Odersky, Phillips, etc.

- scala-typing

Everybody type on a keyboard to write Scala code, no?
Ah, as in type system? Isn't it too restrictive? You use types everywhere.

- scala-development

Ambiguous. Everybody (in the community) do development with Scala. If that's Scala language (compiler) development, it should be more explicit. At least Scala implementation(s) is clear.

+1
So when's that book going to be done to help us overcome our preconceptions and go deeper?  :-)

On Sunday, October 9, 2011 11:49:28 AM UTC-4, leithaus wrote:

Dear Scalarazzi,
i would like to state as plainly as possible, theory is not necessarily "advanced." In many ways theory is less advanced than pragmatic programming because it removes much of the complexity of real world situations and considers models, toys, abstractions, etc. The demands on attention are lesser, not greater. This is the point of theory!
From another perspective, what you get exposed to early will seem simple and what you get exposed to later will seem more complex. i've made it a point to expose youngsters to theoretical computing and abstract mathematics and have had excellent results. i've taught 13 yrs olds both Milner's π-calculus and the lambda calculus. i've taught 4th and 5th graders the essence of Conway Games. Just last spring i had a little 4th grade girl go up to the board and do calculations with infinitary games. They don't come with preconceptions that it's "hard" or "advanced" and i don't tell them that it is and they find their way in -- because wonder at the beauty of the order of the world and desire to engage it is our birthright.
People who come to Scala come because they are seeking a better way to engage their computational work. They have a clue that Scala is organized around different principles. It is insulting to human beings and our potential to exclude discussion of those principles -- especially so that these seekers can judge for themselves whether or not those principles and their particular application in Scala provide a useful organization of computation. The current discussion sometimes reminds me of a certain large software company in Redmond, WA, profiling their market in terms of "Mort" the programmer, who is clueless in a not particularly useful way. Please don't Mort-ify the beginning (Scala) programmer.
Being a Beginner is in no way a statement about intelligence, capability, endurance, strength of will, etc. It's merely a statement about where one is in a process. Maintaining the qualities of a Beginner, including openness to new ideas, willingness to listen, willingness to ask for help, willingness to revisit assumptions, is something i strive to do and that sort of perpetual cluelessness is not only useful in practical programming, it turns out it is at the heart of mathematics. The mathematician strives to maintain naivety. And, if you look around, not just the mathematician, but anyone who wants to go deeper. i submit we want to encourage a Scala community of people who are supported to go deeper.
Best wishes,
--greg

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Philippe Lhoste <Phi...@gmx.net> wrote:

On 09/10/2011 14:03, martin odersky wrote:

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Wright<kev.lee.wright@gmail.com>  wrote:

ding ding, round two!
scala-basics
Formerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and
again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers
for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of
suitable replies.
scala-language
As opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theory
For asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider
this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debate
Unchanged
scala-internals
Unchanged

Not bad.

I think we'll just leave it for now. Not to say that some other
categoization does not have merit, but every change comes with a high
cost, and I do not see sufficient advantages to balance the
inconveniences of changing things around.

We should come back to this matter if/when traffic on scala-user
starts to become unmanagable. Right now we have not yet reached this
point, IMO.

Perhaps slightly improve the descriptions of the lists, to discourage newbies question in scala-language. Moving up the scala-user was already a good idea, anyway. And one advantage of this name is that it is quite common in the mailing list world (that, and -general).

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Meredith Gregory
wrote:
> i would like to state as plainly as possible, theory is not necessarily
> "advanced." In many ways theory is less advanced than pragmatic programming
> because it removes much of the complexity of real world situations and
> considers models, toys, abstractions, etc.

Hey, I thought that was my little secret.

Dear Erik,
Thank you for your inquiry! The continued queries and promptings are a source of inspiration. Bill Venners announced to the Scala mailing list a rough schedule for the EAP and release of the book. Please consult that email. In the meantime keep watching the biosimilarity.blogspot.com channel for excerpts from the material.
Also, a little company in CA, call Protegra, runs a conference they call SDEC. i'll be running some MDP4tW sessions there. i have a really fun little web app illustrating some of the points that people can get their hands on and play with at the conference. i used Abramsky's Computational Interpretations of Linear Logic -- which completely changed my whole approach to computing -- as a principal source of inspiration for the app. It should be a blast for those who are attending. i know i'm prepared to have fun!
Best wishes,
--greg

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Erik Engbrecht <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com> wrote:

+1
So when's that book going to be done to help us overcome our preconceptions and go deeper?  :-)

On Sunday, October 9, 2011 11:49:28 AM UTC-4, leithaus wrote:

Dear Scalarazzi,
i would like to state as plainly as possible, theory is not necessarily "advanced." In many ways theory is less advanced than pragmatic programming because it removes much of the complexity of real world situations and considers models, toys, abstractions, etc. The demands on attention are lesser, not greater. This is the point of theory!
From another perspective, what you get exposed to early will seem simple and what you get exposed to later will seem more complex. i've made it a point to expose youngsters to theoretical computing and abstract mathematics and have had excellent results. i've taught 13 yrs olds both Milner's π-calculus and the lambda calculus. i've taught 4th and 5th graders the essence of Conway Games. Just last spring i had a little 4th grade girl go up to the board and do calculations with infinitary games. They don't come with preconceptions that it's "hard" or "advanced" and i don't tell them that it is and they find their way in -- because wonder at the beauty of the order of the world and desire to engage it is our birthright.
People who come to Scala come because they are seeking a better way to engage their computational work. They have a clue that Scala is organized around different principles. It is insulting to human beings and our potential to exclude discussion of those principles -- especially so that these seekers can judge for themselves whether or not those principles and their particular application in Scala provide a useful organization of computation. The current discussion sometimes reminds me of a certain large software company in Redmond, WA, profiling their market in terms of "Mort" the programmer, who is clueless in a not particularly useful way. Please don't Mort-ify the beginning (Scala) programmer.
Being a Beginner is in no way a statement about intelligence, capability, endurance, strength of will, etc. It's merely a statement about where one is in a process. Maintaining the qualities of a Beginner, including openness to new ideas, willingness to listen, willingness to ask for help, willingness to revisit assumptions, is something i strive to do and that sort of perpetual cluelessness is not only useful in practical programming, it turns out it is at the heart of mathematics. The mathematician strives to maintain naivety. And, if you look around, not just the mathematician, but anyone who wants to go deeper. i submit we want to encourage a Scala community of people who are supported to go deeper.
Best wishes,
--greg

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Philippe Lhoste <Phi...@gmx.net> wrote:

On 09/10/2011 14:03, martin odersky wrote:

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Wright<kev.lee.wright@gmail.com>  wrote:

ding ding, round two!
scala-basics
Formerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and
again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers
for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of
suitable replies.
scala-language
As opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theory
For asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider
this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debate
Unchanged
scala-internals
Unchanged

Not bad.

I think we'll just leave it for now. Not to say that some other
categoization does not have merit, but every change comes with a high
cost, and I do not see sufficient advantages to balance the
inconveniences of changing things around.

We should come back to this matter if/when traffic on scala-user
starts to become unmanagable. Right now we have not yet reached this
point, IMO.

Perhaps slightly improve the descriptions of the lists, to discourage newbies question in scala-language. Moving up the scala-user was already a good idea, anyway. And one advantage of this name is that it is quite common in the mailing list world (that, and -general).

Advanced doesn't mean complex, it means that it's later in the progression.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Meredith Gregory <lgreg.meredith@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Scalarazzi,
i would like to state as plainly as possible, theory is not necessarily "advanced." In many ways theory is less advanced than pragmatic programming because it removes much of the complexity of real world situations and considers models, toys, abstractions, etc. The demands on attention are lesser, not greater. This is the point of theory!
From another perspective, what you get exposed to early will seem simple and what you get exposed to later will seem more complex. i've made it a point to expose youngsters to theoretical computing and abstract mathematics and have had excellent results. i've taught 13 yrs olds both Milner's π-calculus and the lambda calculus. i've taught 4th and 5th graders the essence of Conway Games. Just last spring i had a little 4th grade girl go up to the board and do calculations with infinitary games. They don't come with preconceptions that it's "hard" or "advanced" and i don't tell them that it is and they find their way in -- because wonder at the beauty of the order of the world and desire to engage it is our birthright.
People who come to Scala come because they are seeking a better way to engage their computational work. They have a clue that Scala is organized around different principles. It is insulting to human beings and our potential to exclude discussion of those principles -- especially so that these seekers can judge for themselves whether or not those principles and their particular application in Scala provide a useful organization of computation. The current discussion sometimes reminds me of a certain large software company in Redmond, WA, profiling their market in terms of "Mort" the programmer, who is clueless in a not particularly useful way. Please don't Mort-ify the beginning (Scala) programmer.
Being a Beginner is in no way a statement about intelligence, capability, endurance, strength of will, etc. It's merely a statement about where one is in a process. Maintaining the qualities of a Beginner, including openness to new ideas, willingness to listen, willingness to ask for help, willingness to revisit assumptions, is something i strive to do and that sort of perpetual cluelessness is not only useful in practical programming, it turns out it is at the heart of mathematics. The mathematician strives to maintain naivety. And, if you look around, not just the mathematician, but anyone who wants to go deeper. i submit we want to encourage a Scala community of people who are supported to go deeper.
Best wishes,
--greg

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@gmx.net> wrote:

On 09/10/2011 14:03, martin odersky wrote:

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Wright<kev.lee.wright@gmail.com>  wrote:

ding ding, round two!
scala-basics
Formerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and
again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers
for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of
suitable replies.
scala-language
As opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theory
For asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider
this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debate
Unchanged
scala-internals
Unchanged

Not bad.

I think we'll just leave it for now. Not to say that some other
categoization does not have merit, but every change comes with a high
cost, and I do not see sufficient advantages to balance the
inconveniences of changing things around.

We should come back to this matter if/when traffic on scala-user
starts to become unmanagable. Right now we have not yet reached this
point, IMO.

Perhaps slightly improve the descriptions of the lists, to discourage newbies question in scala-language. Moving up the scala-user was already a good idea, anyway. And one advantage of this name is that it is quite common in the mailing list world (that, and -general).

Advanced doesn't mean complex, it means that it's later in the progression.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Meredith Gregory <lgreg.meredith@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Scalarazzi,
i would like to state as plainly as possible, theory is not necessarily "advanced." In many ways theory is less advanced than pragmatic programming because it removes much of the complexity of real world situations and considers models, toys, abstractions, etc. The demands on attention are lesser, not greater. This is the point of theory!
From another perspective, what you get exposed to early will seem simple and what you get exposed to later will seem more complex. i've made it a point to expose youngsters to theoretical computing and abstract mathematics and have had excellent results. i've taught 13 yrs olds both Milner's π-calculus and the lambda calculus. i've taught 4th and 5th graders the essence of Conway Games. Just last spring i had a little 4th grade girl go up to the board and do calculations with infinitary games. They don't come with preconceptions that it's "hard" or "advanced" and i don't tell them that it is and they find their way in -- because wonder at the beauty of the order of the world and desire to engage it is our birthright.
People who come to Scala come because they are seeking a better way to engage their computational work. They have a clue that Scala is organized around different principles. It is insulting to human beings and our potential to exclude discussion of those principles -- especially so that these seekers can judge for themselves whether or not those principles and their particular application in Scala provide a useful organization of computation. The current discussion sometimes reminds me of a certain large software company in Redmond, WA, profiling their market in terms of "Mort" the programmer, who is clueless in a not particularly useful way. Please don't Mort-ify the beginning (Scala) programmer.
Being a Beginner is in no way a statement about intelligence, capability, endurance, strength of will, etc. It's merely a statement about where one is in a process. Maintaining the qualities of a Beginner, including openness to new ideas, willingness to listen, willingness to ask for help, willingness to revisit assumptions, is something i strive to do and that sort of perpetual cluelessness is not only useful in practical programming, it turns out it is at the heart of mathematics. The mathematician strives to maintain naivety. And, if you look around, not just the mathematician, but anyone who wants to go deeper. i submit we want to encourage a Scala community of people who are supported to go deeper.
Best wishes,
--greg

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@gmx.net> wrote:

On 09/10/2011 14:03, martin odersky wrote:

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Wright<kev.lee.wright@gmail.com>  wrote:

ding ding, round two!
scala-basics
Formerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and
again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers
for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of
suitable replies.
scala-language
As opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theory
For asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider
this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debate
Unchanged
scala-internals
Unchanged

Not bad.

I think we'll just leave it for now. Not to say that some other
categoization does not have merit, but every change comes with a high
cost, and I do not see sufficient advantages to balance the
inconveniences of changing things around.

We should come back to this matter if/when traffic on scala-user
starts to become unmanagable. Right now we have not yet reached this
point, IMO.

Perhaps slightly improve the descriptions of the lists, to discourage newbies question in scala-language. Moving up the scala-user was already a good idea, anyway. And one advantage of this name is that it is quite common in the mailing list world (that, and -general).

Dear Naftoli,
Brilliant! Well observed!
Best wishes,
--greg

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoligug@gmail.com> wrote:

Advanced doesn't mean complex, it means that it's later in the progression.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Meredith Gregory <lgreg.meredith@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Scalarazzi,
i would like to state as plainly as possible, theory is not necessarily "advanced." In many ways theory is less advanced than pragmatic programming because it removes much of the complexity of real world situations and considers models, toys, abstractions, etc. The demands on attention are lesser, not greater. This is the point of theory!
From another perspective, what you get exposed to early will seem simple and what you get exposed to later will seem more complex. i've made it a point to expose youngsters to theoretical computing and abstract mathematics and have had excellent results. i've taught 13 yrs olds both Milner's π-calculus and the lambda calculus. i've taught 4th and 5th graders the essence of Conway Games. Just last spring i had a little 4th grade girl go up to the board and do calculations with infinitary games. They don't come with preconceptions that it's "hard" or "advanced" and i don't tell them that it is and they find their way in -- because wonder at the beauty of the order of the world and desire to engage it is our birthright.
People who come to Scala come because they are seeking a better way to engage their computational work. They have a clue that Scala is organized around different principles. It is insulting to human beings and our potential to exclude discussion of those principles -- especially so that these seekers can judge for themselves whether or not those principles and their particular application in Scala provide a useful organization of computation. The current discussion sometimes reminds me of a certain large software company in Redmond, WA, profiling their market in terms of "Mort" the programmer, who is clueless in a not particularly useful way. Please don't Mort-ify the beginning (Scala) programmer.
Being a Beginner is in no way a statement about intelligence, capability, endurance, strength of will, etc. It's merely a statement about where one is in a process. Maintaining the qualities of a Beginner, including openness to new ideas, willingness to listen, willingness to ask for help, willingness to revisit assumptions, is something i strive to do and that sort of perpetual cluelessness is not only useful in practical programming, it turns out it is at the heart of mathematics. The mathematician strives to maintain naivety. And, if you look around, not just the mathematician, but anyone who wants to go deeper. i submit we want to encourage a Scala community of people who are supported to go deeper.
Best wishes,
--greg

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@gmx.net> wrote:

On 09/10/2011 14:03, martin odersky wrote:

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Wright<kev.lee.wright@gmail.com>  wrote:

ding ding, round two!
scala-basics
Formerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and
again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers
for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of
suitable replies.
scala-language
As opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theory
For asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider
this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debate
Unchanged
scala-internals
Unchanged

Not bad.

I think we'll just leave it for now. Not to say that some other
categoization does not have merit, but every change comes with a high
cost, and I do not see sufficient advantages to balance the
inconveniences of changing things around.

We should come back to this matter if/when traffic on scala-user
starts to become unmanagable. Right now we have not yet reached this
point, IMO.

Perhaps slightly improve the descriptions of the lists, to discourage newbies question in scala-language. Moving up the scala-user was already a good idea, anyway. And one advantage of this name is that it is quite common in the mailing list world (that, and -general).

Dear Naftoli,
Brilliant! Well observed!
Best wishes,
--greg

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoligug@gmail.com> wrote:

Advanced doesn't mean complex, it means that it's later in the progression.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Meredith Gregory <lgreg.meredith@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Scalarazzi,
i would like to state as plainly as possible, theory is not necessarily "advanced." In many ways theory is less advanced than pragmatic programming because it removes much of the complexity of real world situations and considers models, toys, abstractions, etc. The demands on attention are lesser, not greater. This is the point of theory!
From another perspective, what you get exposed to early will seem simple and what you get exposed to later will seem more complex. i've made it a point to expose youngsters to theoretical computing and abstract mathematics and have had excellent results. i've taught 13 yrs olds both Milner's π-calculus and the lambda calculus. i've taught 4th and 5th graders the essence of Conway Games. Just last spring i had a little 4th grade girl go up to the board and do calculations with infinitary games. They don't come with preconceptions that it's "hard" or "advanced" and i don't tell them that it is and they find their way in -- because wonder at the beauty of the order of the world and desire to engage it is our birthright.
People who come to Scala come because they are seeking a better way to engage their computational work. They have a clue that Scala is organized around different principles. It is insulting to human beings and our potential to exclude discussion of those principles -- especially so that these seekers can judge for themselves whether or not those principles and their particular application in Scala provide a useful organization of computation. The current discussion sometimes reminds me of a certain large software company in Redmond, WA, profiling their market in terms of "Mort" the programmer, who is clueless in a not particularly useful way. Please don't Mort-ify the beginning (Scala) programmer.
Being a Beginner is in no way a statement about intelligence, capability, endurance, strength of will, etc. It's merely a statement about where one is in a process. Maintaining the qualities of a Beginner, including openness to new ideas, willingness to listen, willingness to ask for help, willingness to revisit assumptions, is something i strive to do and that sort of perpetual cluelessness is not only useful in practical programming, it turns out it is at the heart of mathematics. The mathematician strives to maintain naivety. And, if you look around, not just the mathematician, but anyone who wants to go deeper. i submit we want to encourage a Scala community of people who are supported to go deeper.
Best wishes,
--greg

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@gmx.net> wrote:

On 09/10/2011 14:03, martin odersky wrote:

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Wright<kev.lee.wright@gmail.com>  wrote:

ding ding, round two!
scala-basics
Formerly known as scala-user. Because everybody has basic questions now and
again, even an "advanced" user may suddenly find themselves using parsers
for the first time.  It also serves as an indication for the nature of
suitable replies.
scala-language
As opposed to scala-nightclub, scala-cafe, etc.
scala-theory
For asking (and answering) questions about underlying concepts. Consider
this to be an "advanced" group!
scala-debate
Unchanged
scala-internals
Unchanged

Not bad.

I think we'll just leave it for now. Not to say that some other
categoization does not have merit, but every change comes with a high
cost, and I do not see sufficient advantages to balance the
inconveniences of changing things around.

We should come back to this matter if/when traffic on scala-user
starts to become unmanagable. Right now we have not yet reached this
point, IMO.

Perhaps slightly improve the descriptions of the lists, to discourage newbies question in scala-language. Moving up the scala-user was already a good idea, anyway. And one advantage of this name is that it is quite common in the mailing list world (that, and -general).

Hi Martin,

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:56 AM, martin wrote:
[cut]
> If you want
> to force an intellectual argument on a newbie that asked a simple question,
> that's just bad style.
[cut]

As a newbie, this is just my "Quote of the day". :-)
I've been lurking this mailing list for a while as I'm planning to
learn Scala. Let's see what happens.

In the light of Martin's mail I just want to reproduce the feedback of some of
my peers when I asked them if they already took a look at scala-the-language
(over the last 1.5 years - so some of the answers might be different today,
but its hard to push the "retry" button on someone who has already turned
away).

Context: people who toyed with scala did so out of curiosity in their spare
time.

The main feedback was kind of
"I tried it - but hey, there is so much about that language to learn and look
into... I just gave up."

When I queried further it boiled down to (most often to least often):

* difficulties to find a comprehensive introduction which got them (from java
background) to speed and provided a satisfying "first contact" experience.
"There where lots of things in the web - but the more I read the more I got
confused. I just didn't get the picture..."

* difficulties to see where scala could be useful (without jobs in the
pipeline)
"Sure, it's looking nice - but what could I do with it?"

* Bad impression from the API
"I surfed the API. It didn't manage to introduce me sufficiently to its
concepts or use cases. So I dropped it (the language) as waste of time".

* Only one refered to the "academic" air (also with some stronger words). I
suppose he got biten somehow directly or read something which sparked his
rejection (I didn't ask further). Unfortunately he's someone I would consider
a key player in adoption.

Bottom line: the community is very important. And it can drive people away for
sure. If the wrong one are hit that can be bad.

But my impression is that the failure to sustain the "hobbyist's" interest
that was sparked once is more tied to the state of documentation.
People just had too hard a time to find the right resource to get them going
or not enough "advertisment" to show them what a crazy tool the get once they
master the first step.
Note: I can't estimate however how serious these "first contacts" were.
Note: with "hobbyist" I mean battle tested java people with an initial
interest in scala

What to do about it?
* better API documentation => currently under way. Find a way to have some
package "overview" pages.
* "official" compilation of suggested reading tracks (preferably online stuff
- book references is more for those who really get going)
* try to collect reasons why people turn away (I know - scala will not fit
every bill. But it's not good to loose the wrong ones and it's even worse not
to know at all, why people turn away).
* Showcases - scala is useful!
=> hey, the REPL is an amazing tool on its own. Let's showcase the power of
the language and collection API by sharing small day-to-day scripting
solutions as copy-and-modify starters.

Just my private 2 cents
best wishes
Bernd

2011/10/10 Bernd Johannes <bjohanns@bacon.de>

In the light of Martin's mail I just want to reproduce the feedback of some of
my peers when I asked them if they already took a look at scala-the-language
(over the last 1.5 years - so some of the answers might be different today,
but its hard to push the "retry" button on someone who has already turned
away).

Context: people who toyed with scala did so out of curiosity in their spare
time.

The main feedback was kind of
"I tried it - but hey, there is so much about that language to learn and look
into... I just gave up."

When I queried further it boiled down to (most often to least often):

* difficulties to find a comprehensive introduction which got them (from java
background) to speed and  provided a satisfying "first contact" experience.
"There where lots of things in the web - but the more I read the more I got
confused. I just didn't get the picture..."

* difficulties to see where scala could be useful (without jobs in the
pipeline)
"Sure, it's looking nice - but what could I do with it?"

* Bad impression from the API
"I surfed the API. It didn't manage to introduce me sufficiently to its
concepts or use cases. So I dropped it (the language) as waste of time".

* Only one refered to the "academic" air (also with some stronger words). I
suppose he got biten somehow directly or read something which sparked his
rejection (I didn't ask further). Unfortunately  he's someone I would consider
a key player in adoption.

Bottom line: the community is very important. And it can drive people away for
sure. If the wrong one are hit that can be bad.

But my impression is that the failure to sustain the "hobbyist's" interest
that was sparked once is more tied to the state of documentation.
People just had too hard a time to find the right resource to get them going
or not enough "advertisment" to show them what a crazy tool the get once they
master the first step.

On that particular point, Scala has that problem (to me, a strong point) that the "crazy tools" it brings don't do in an easier way what mainstream languages (i.e. java) already do. Scala do these things in its own specific way, but the biggest advantages of Scala aren't there. Scala brings up new possibilities (immutability, functional style, etc), brings up concepts that are mostly unknown too the average programmer. It's like selling a mirror to the blind, it's quite hard. Resources exist, but newcomers should be oriented to it, and the benefits of the theoretical bones of Scala should be advertised too, not only code.

The scala lists are incredibly helpful, but there is an orientation problem. If I post something about a problem that I'm struggling with, I may get answers ranging from "you're doing it the wrong way, do it THAT way" to "look at scalaz.BestCategoryEver". Generally, all answers are correct, but it's hard to find the answer that match your level in Scala,your level in language theory AND your global programming level. If anything should be improved in these lists, that would be orientation. And that was my 2 cents of the day.
 

Note: I can't estimate however how serious these "first contacts" were.
Note: with "hobbyist" I mean battle tested java people with an initial
interest in scala

What to do about it?
* better API documentation => currently under way. Find a way to have some
package "overview" pages.
* "official" compilation of suggested reading tracks (preferably online stuff
- book references is more for those who really get going)
* try to collect reasons why people turn away (I know - scala will not fit
every bill. But it's not good to loose the wrong ones and it's even worse not
to know at all, why people turn away).
* Showcases - scala is useful!
=> hey, the REPL is an amazing tool on its own. Let's showcase the power of
the language and collection API by sharing small day-to-day scripting
solutions as copy-and-modify starters.

Just my private 2 cents
best wishes
Bernd

--
Alex REPAIN
ENSEIRB-MATMECA - student
TECHNICOLOR R&D - intern
BORDEAUX I      - master's student
SCALA           - enthusiast

HI,

On 10 October 2011 22:22, Bernd Johannes <bjohanns@bacon.de> wrote:

In the light of Martin's mail I just want to reproduce the feedback of some of
my peers when I asked them if they already took a look at scala-the-language
(over the last 1.5 years - so some of the answers might be different today,
but its hard to push the "retry" button on someone who has already turned
away).

Context: people who toyed with scala did so out of curiosity in their spare
time.

The main feedback was kind of
"I tried it - but hey, there is so much about that language to learn and look
into... I just gave up."

When I queried further it boiled down to (most often to least often):

 

* Bad impression from the API
"I surfed the API. It didn't manage to introduce me sufficiently to its
concepts or use cases. So I dropped it (the language) as waste of time".

I find scaladoc as a tool/environment better than javadoc. However, the content is at least as important. I know some people don't like the idea, but to hook these people it would be great to have code snippets in the scaladoc for each user-facing class that they can try out there and then. Ideally, it should be (linked to?) something you can paste into the REPL and run there and then. It doesn't need to be complex, just anything at all that lets them use the class and key methods.
Matthew 

Just my private 2 cents
best wishes
Bernd

--
Dr Matthew PocockIntegrative Bioinformatics Group, School of Computing Science, Newcastle Universitymailto: turingatemyhamster@gmail.com gchat: turingatemyhamster@gmail.commsn: matthew_pocock@yahoo.co.uk irc.freenode.net: drdozertel: (0191) 2566550mob: +447535664143

IIRC PHP's docs on the site have user comments on bottom. Which makes
me think that a way to implement your idea is not by directly adding
them to the scala sources but rather have a way to get extra related
content from the web dynamically. Such content could include code
samples and/or links.
One (poor man's) implementation could be as a bookmarklet that's not
actually part of the scaladocs...

On 10/11/11, Matthew Pocock wrote:
> HI,
>
> On 10 October 2011 22:22, Bernd Johannes wrote:
>
>> In the light of Martin's mail I just want to reproduce the feedback of
>> some
>> of
>> my peers when I asked them if they already took a look at
>> scala-the-language
>> (over the last 1.5 years - so some of the answers might be different
>> today,
>> but its hard to push the "retry" button on someone who has already turned
>> away).
>>
>> Context: people who toyed with scala did so out of curiosity in their
>> spare
>> time.
>>
>> The main feedback was kind of
>> "I tried it - but hey, there is so much about that language to learn and
>> look
>> into... I just gave up."
>>
>> When I queried further it boiled down to (most often to least often):
>>
>
>
>>
>> * Bad impression from the API
>> "I surfed the API. It didn't manage to introduce me sufficiently to its
>> concepts or use cases. So I dropped it (the language) as waste of time".
>>
>>
> I find scaladoc as a tool/environment better than javadoc. However, the
> content is at least as important. I know some people don't like the idea,
> but to hook these people it would be great to have code snippets in the
> scaladoc for each user-facing class that they can try out there and then.
> Ideally, it should be (linked to?) something you can paste into the REPL and
> run there and then. It doesn't need to be complex, just anything at all that
> lets them use the class and key methods.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>> Just my private 2 cents
>> best wishes
>> Bernd
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr Matthew Pocock
> Integrative Bioinformatics Group, School of Computing Science, Newcastle
> University
> mailto: turingatemyhamster@gmail.com
> gchat: turingatemyhamster@gmail.com
> msn: matthew_pocock@yahoo.co.uk
> irc.freenode.net: drdozer
> tel: (0191) 2566550
> mob: +447535664143
>

Stack Overflow and blog posts were BY FAR my best source of
information. I didn't even learn that these mailing lists existed
until a few months ago, and that was only after searching through the
http://www.scala-lang.org website quite a bit. It's quite intimidating
to ask questions here because it seems like everyone else is on a much
higher level than me. SO doesn't have that feel, and is already a
wonderful knowledge repository. IMO the Scala portion of SO already
does the job of scala-beginner. Programming in Scala online edition
was also a massive help.

That being said, when I first started learning Scala, I often looked
to the Code Examples sections of scala-lang.org to try and find my
answers and they were unhelpful, to say the least. Most of the code
examples haven't been updated in three years (many still use the
deprecated Application), and many have no documentation attached to
them. For instance, http://www.scala-lang.org/node/230. The only
comment is completely useless in helping me learn what's going on in
that example. The other examples are similar. I also looked to the
examples under "A tour of Scala" and those were completely beyond me.
For instance, http://www.scala-lang.org/node/124. I still have no idea
what an explicitly typed self-reference is. I'm sure I could
understand it after some research, but I think a significant number of
people are going to use the examples in the official Scala website as
their first resource.

Thanks,
Xiaohan Zhang
p5wscala.wordpress.com/about-me/

On Oct 6, 12:56 am, martin wrote:
> Here's a recent mail on reddit, which we should take very seriously.
>
> I agree with the points in the mail. I think the community has a major job
> to do to help people get into the language instead being obscure and riding
> academic high horses.
>
> I would like to start with this list. Please everyone, remember: This list
> is for helping people getting into Scala and getting their questions
> answered. That's the primary purpose of scala-user. If you are after
> intellectual arguments, no problem, but please use scala-debate. If you want
> to force an intellectual argument on a newbie that asked a simple question,
> that's just bad style.
>
> Thanks
>

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:30, Matthew Pocock
wrote:
>
> I find scaladoc as a tool/environment better than javadoc. However, the
> content is at least as important. I know some people don't like the idea,
> but to hook these people it would be great to have code snippets in the
> scaladoc for each user-facing class that they can try out there and then.
> Ideally, it should be (linked to?) something you can paste into the REPL and
> run there and then. It doesn't need to be complex, just anything at all that
> lets them use the class and key methods.

I'm with you. I'd *love* for ScalaDoc to somehow be able to provide an
integrated SimplyScala.

Have you ever looked at Simply Scala (http://www.simplyscala.com/)? It
seems no one learning Scala learns of it, and I always thought it is
probably the best first impression of Scala that can be had.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 22:48, Xiaohan Zhang wrote:
> Stack Overflow and blog posts were BY FAR my best source of
> information. I didn't even learn that these mailing lists existed
> until a few months ago, and that was only after searching through the
> http://www.scala-lang.org website quite a bit. It's quite intimidating
> to ask questions here because it seems like everyone else is on a much
> higher level than me. SO doesn't have that feel, and is already a
> wonderful knowledge repository. IMO the Scala portion of SO already
> does the job of scala-beginner. Programming in Scala online edition
> was also a massive help.
>
> That being said, when I first started learning Scala, I often looked
> to the Code Examples sections of scala-lang.org to try and find my
> answers and they were unhelpful, to say the least. Most of the code
> examples haven't been updated in three years (many still use the
> deprecated Application), and many have no documentation attached to
> them. For instance, http://www.scala-lang.org/node/230. The only
> comment is completely useless in helping me learn what's going on in
> that example. The other examples are similar. I also looked to the
> examples under "A tour of Scala" and those were completely beyond me.
> For instance, http://www.scala-lang.org/node/124. I still have no idea
> what an explicitly typed self-reference is. I'm sure I could
> understand it after some research, but I think a significant number of
> people are going to use the examples in the official Scala website as
> their first resource.
>
> Thanks,
> Xiaohan Zhang
> p5wscala.wordpress.com/about-me/
>
> On Oct 6, 12:56 am, martin wrote:
>> Here's a recent mail on reddit, which we should take very seriously.
>>
>> I agree with the points in the mail. I think the community has a major job
>> to do to help people get into the language instead being obscure and riding
>> academic high horses.
>>
>> I would like to start with this list. Please everyone, remember: This list
>> is for helping people getting into Scala and getting their questions
>> answered. That's the primary purpose of scala-user. If you are after
>> intellectual arguments, no problem, but please use scala-debate. If you want
>> to force an intellectual argument on a newbie that asked a simple question,
>> that's just bad style.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>  -- Martin
>>
>> =======================================================================
>>
>> I tried to use Scala, and found it has one major disadvantage going for it,
>> the community.
>>
>> Most of the developers for Scala and community members I interacted with
>> were very focused on being right from a computer science perspective, and
>> from their own view on how things should be done. They were not at all
>> focused on helping developers actually get work done. This extended to the
>> libraries that come with Scala. If they didn't like how you did something,
>> they made the libraries much harder to accomplish that task with. As an
>> example, appending to a list requires a rather cryptic syntax (myList :::=
>> "something").
>>
>> Along with that, Scala seems to be in love with symbols. They use them
>> everywhere, and many times portions of the syntax are optional, so you can
>> see different incarnations of the same syntax look very different in
>> different places.
>>
>> Also Scala has a very high learning curve for traditional Java developers.
>> Instead of making this curve workable by gradually introducing developers to
>> advanced features, the Scala libraries and all it's documentation force you
>> to see all the concepts all at once. They often do a very poor job of
>> explaining why they force you to do things their way, and just tell you to
>> do them.
>>
>> While the Scala language technically lets you program in a way similar to
>> Java, but with advanced features as needed, the libraries are written in a
>> way to make this nearly impossible.
>>
>> What all this means is that a developer from any traditional OOP language,
>> or less complex language is going to have a very very hard time learning
>> Scala, and in the end the time you lost learning won't make up for any
>> advantage Scala's 'way' provides.
>>
>> As long as the Scala community is so obtuse and focused on being right their
>> way, as opposed to helping developers get into the language, Scala will
>> remain a nitch language.
>

:)

http://bit.ly/oEUB6O

note the "try now" button at the bottom...

to quote a new piece of code, start from www.tryscala.com and use the little
"Witty" link at the bottom-right.

You could obviously use https://gist.github.com/ as well, but it doesn't
have the "try now" button :)

This is all using the http://github.com/razie/scripster project, so someone
could stick it directly into scaladoc, and automatically generate the
links...

I will see about adding a "doc" button to generate the scaladoc snippets
automatically and report back.

There is obviously a small issue: only select libraries are included in the
classpath of this server. Each library provider must run its own "tryme"
service - no biggie, since it's all public and ... rather the reason for it
:)

Cheers,
Razie

-----Original Message-----
From: scala-user@googlegroups.com [mailto:scala-user@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Daniel Sobral
Sent: October-12-11 1:20 PM
To: Matthew Pocock
Cc: Bernd Johannes; martin; scala-user@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [scala-user] The Scala community

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:30, Matthew Pocock
wrote:
>
> I find scaladoc as a tool/environment better than javadoc. However,
> the content is at least as important. I know some people don't like
> the idea, but to hook these people it would be great to have code
> snippets in the scaladoc for each user-facing class that they can try out
there and then.
> Ideally, it should be (linked to?) something you can paste into the
> REPL and run there and then. It doesn't need to be complex, just
> anything at all that lets them use the class and key methods.

I'm with you. I'd *love* for ScalaDoc to somehow be able to provide an
integrated SimplyScala.

--
Daniel C. Sobral

I travel to the future all the time.

Done.

Start from http://cw.razie.com, edit the code and click the "Link" link at
the bottom. After eventually getting the Link, you'll also see the
copy/paste for scaladoc.

If anyone is interested in modifying scaladoc itself, let me know: I can add
an API so that portion can be invoked automatically by scaladoc and instead
print a beautified HTML containing the html syntax-colored code and the
short link for "try now".

Cheers,
Razie

-----Original Message-----
From: Razvan Cojocaru [mailto:pub@razie.com]
Sent: October-12-11 9:01 PM
To: 'Daniel Sobral'; 'Matthew Pocock'
Cc: 'Bernd Johannes'; 'martin'; scala-user@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [scala-user] The Scala community

:)

http://bit.ly/oEUB6O

note the "try now" button at the bottom...

to quote a new piece of code, start from www.tryscala.com and use the little
"Witty" link at the bottom-right.

You could obviously use https://gist.github.com/ as well, but it doesn't
have the "try now" button :)

This is all using the http://github.com/razie/scripster project, so someone
could stick it directly into scaladoc, and automatically generate the
links...

I will see about adding a "doc" button to generate the scaladoc snippets
automatically and report back.

There is obviously a small issue: only select libraries are included in the
classpath of this server. Each library provider must run its own "tryme"
service - no biggie, since it's all public and ... rather the reason for it
:)

Cheers,
Razie

-----Original Message-----
From: scala-user@googlegroups.com [mailto:scala-user@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Daniel Sobral
Sent: October-12-11 1:20 PM
To: Matthew Pocock
Cc: Bernd Johannes; martin; scala-user@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [scala-user] The Scala community

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:30, Matthew Pocock
wrote:
>
> I find scaladoc as a tool/environment better than javadoc. However,
> the content is at least as important. I know some people don't like
> the idea, but to hook these people it would be great to have code
> snippets in the scaladoc for each user-facing class that they can try
> out
there and then.
> Ideally, it should be (linked to?) something you can paste into the
> REPL and run there and then. It doesn't need to be complex, just
> anything at all that lets them use the class and key methods.

I'm with you. I'd *love* for ScalaDoc to somehow be able to provide an
integrated SimplyScala.

--
Daniel C. Sobral

I travel to the future all the time.