Re: IDE is the first imperative of Scala

agree, but it's not just about learning, it's about constructing,
managing, debugging and refactoring larger projects. some people will
be fine doin it in their textmate / jedit / notepad / emacs /
, but others are looking for a rich IDE
like eclipse. and i assume in the java world (sorry to take that
example) the user base working with eclipse is >>> the user base
working with notepad (for some crucial reason, not just checkboxes,
folks). of course the IDE should be "decoupled" from the language,
but the lack of a smooth open source IDE experience is a complete
showstopper for me a.t.m.

cheers, -sciss-

Am 10.08.2009 um 00:24 schrieb Naftoli Gugenheim:

> Personally I'd rather learn Scala the way I did to a large extent,
> with Eclipse showing me compile errors in place, and completion
> working most of the time (when there aren't mismatched braces etc.,
> and once in a while reopening the editor)...
>
> -------------------------------------
> Alexy Khrabrov wrote:
>
> That IDE is "an imperative" is a fallacy. I started using Scala with
> TextMate and compiled it from the command line. An IDE would
> dictate a need
> to learn both a language and a GUI with checkboxes and OK's and
> whatnots.
> In case of Scala one also has to learn a build tool, which is already
> making it too much. IDE and build tool obscure the language and
> distract
> from it on the learning stage.
> I think that those three things should be decoupled (detripled?).
> Stick all
> classes into a ./lib/ and learn Scala first; learn a build tool
> second, and
> an IDE last. Only after I managed my Scala a bit and Maven for the
> build,
> to be compatible with Java and friends, I got myself an IDEA and that
> polished it off nicely, like a good single-malt scotch for a nightcap.
>
> Then again I'm coming from OCaml/Ruby/C/non-JVM Unix world, and
> chasing
> checkboxes with mice was never my focus. If Scala plays to the
> Java crowd
> used to their GUI IDEs, then it's a requirement. But for a
> beginner, I'd
> strongly suggest fall back on vi/emacs/TextMate (there's an excellent
> Windows clone, e-editor), get a simplest build system, and focus on
> the
> language.
>
> Cheers,
> Alexy

Pouring yet more gas on the fire...

First I do understand why most "need" something like Eclipse and I'm not going to rain on their parade.  But this "without Eclipse one is limited with  playing with toy Scala programs typed in some equivalent of Notepad, because real projects _need_ Eclipse ..." 

You must be joking.  Seriously.

The vast majority have _no_ idea how constraining and limiting some people view things like Eclipse and Netbeans.  For those who code dilly-dally a few hours a day as a job, sure an IDE offers productivity improvement.

For those who take their software development seriously, as a dedicated profession,  nothing and I mean nothing, beats a finely tuned Unix system, shell, command line, scripts, a properly configured emacs, SBT etc. for a substantive project.  Few are willing to invest the time to strive for the necessary mastery, to become facile with unix, shell, scripts, the command-line, emacs customization and elisp programming along with general familiarity with a host of tools and utilities. 

For those who do, however, these IDE's look like little more the glorified and rather anemic, steroidal Notepads.  They are productivity killers.

That said, there is no doubt that solid, comprehensive Eclipse support is necessary for Scala's continued growth.  That is a given.  It is absolutely incorrect to assume that it is necessary whatsoever for serious project work in Scala.

Ray

I would be curious to hear in more concrete, specific terms in what ways one can be more productive, how you described.

-------------------------------------
Ray Racine wrote:

Pouring yet more gas on the fire...

First I do understand why most "need" something like Eclipse and I'm not
going to rain on their parade. But this "without Eclipse one is limited
with playing with toy Scala programs typed in some equivalent of Notepad,
because real projects _need_ Eclipse ..."

You must be joking. Seriously.

The vast majority have _no_ idea how constraining and limiting some people
view things like Eclipse and Netbeans. For those who code dilly-dally a few
hours a day as a job, sure an IDE offers productivity improvement.

For those who take their software development seriously, as a dedicated
profession, nothing and I mean nothing, beats a finely tuned Unix system,
shell, command line, scripts, a properly configured emacs, SBT etc. for a
substantive project. Few are willing to invest the time to strive for the
necessary mastery, to become facile with unix, shell, scripts, the
command-line, emacs customization and elisp programming along with general
familiarity with a host of tools and utilities.

For those who do, however, these IDE's look like little more the glorified
and rather anemic, steroidal Notepads. They are productivity killers.

That said, there is no doubt that solid, comprehensive Eclipse support is
necessary for Scala's continued growth. That is a given. It is absolutely
incorrect to assume that it is necessary whatsoever for serious project work
in Scala.

Ray

http://osteele.com/archives/2004/11/ides

It's import to note that, regardless of whether they are -imperative- or not, IDEs are certainly a -priority- for Scala. The Scala team recognizes that people value their IDEs, and Martin Odersky himself spent a good chunk of time this summer working to improve the Scala compiler's IDE integration.

Nothing in this thread should be construed to mean that "Scala doesn't care about IDEs". In fact the opposite is true. It just takes work to get IDEs to understand a new language.

--j

On Sunday August 9 2009, James Iry wrote:
> http://osteele.com/archives/2004/11/ides

Nice, but where is the Maven-maven in that analysis?

Randall "hoiven maven" Schulz

Oh yes
Good ol' C-x M-c M-butterfly

On Monday, August 10, 2009, James Iry wrote:
> http://osteele.com/archives/2004/11/ides
>

 @font-face { font-family: 宋体; } @font-face { font-family: Verdana; } @font-face { font-family: @宋体; } @page Section1 {size: 595.3pt 841.9pt; margin: 72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; layout-grid: 15.6pt; } P.MsoNormal { TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt } LI.MsoNormal { TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt } DIV.MsoNormal { TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt } A:link { COLOR: #1c1c1c; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: #1c1c1c; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: #343434; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: #343434; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.EmailStyle17 { FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-style-type: personal-compose } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } BLOCKQUOTE { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 2em } OL { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px } UL { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px } Please be serious, bro. This is not a forum like in china that you can guanshui freely. For your opinion at least you should explain instead of only complain.   De Gao 2009-08-10 发件人： Wu GuangChun 发送时间： 2009-08-09 21:51:17 收件人： scala-user 抄送： 主题： [scala-user] IDE is the first imperative of Scala   There is no usable IDE currently.
And there are no successful static programming languages without a good IDE.

Did you see all the correspondings? Everything is clear, we do need a free usable productive IDE.
Scala's target is to become the next generation of Java, not the next generation of python.

Maybe some people prefer command line, Emacs or IDEA, but they are and will always be minority.
Most of us need to use scala in real projects, not just for learning. You can't require all the team members to use Notepad. Without a good IDE, it's certainly less productive than Java, even though more language features are provided.

We can't adopt a new language for NOTHING.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:23 AM, De Gao <gaode.ml@gmail.com> wrote:

Please be serious, bro. This is not a forum like in china that you can guanshui freely. For your opinion at least you should explain instead of only complain.   De Gao 2009-08-10

Ray,

100% agree with your thoughts. I simply can't belive the thread
starter can't understand that there are those of us who value language
features over tool features; scala:cc is more than enough to be
productive right out of the box with what is a very capable and
productive language.

Cheers, Tim

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Aug 2009, at 01:01, Ray Racine wrote:

> Pouring yet more gas on the fire...
>
> First I do understand why most "need" something like Eclipse and I'm
> not going to rain on their parade. But this "without Eclipse one is
> limited with playing with toy Scala programs typed in some
> equivalent of Notepad, because real projects _need_ Eclipse ..."
>
> You must be joking. Seriously.
>
> The vast majority have _no_ idea how constraining and limiting some
> people view things like Eclipse and Netbeans. For those who code
> dilly-dally a few hours a day as a job, sure an IDE offers
> productivity improvement.
>
> For those who take their software development seriously, as a
> dedicated profession, nothing and I mean nothing, beats a finely
> tuned Unix system, shell, command line, scripts, a properly
> configured emacs, SBT etc. for a substantive project. Few are
> willing to invest the time to strive for the necessary mastery, to
> become facile with unix, shell, scripts, the command-line, emacs
> customization and elisp programming along with general familiarity
> with a host of tools and utilities.
>
> For those who do, however, these IDE's look like little more the
> glorified and rather anemic, steroidal Notepads. They are
> productivity killers.
>
> That said, there is no doubt that solid, comprehensive Eclipse
> support is necessary for Scala's continued growth. That is a
> given. It is absolutely incorrect to assume that it is necessary
> whatsoever for serious project work in Scala.
>
> Ray
>

On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Wu GuangChun wrote:
> We can't adopt a new language for NOTHING.

Woah, successful troll is successful.

Now tell us that you're going to use Ruby/Python instead because of
its "dynamic nature" and "flexibility". /rolleyes

While not very experienced in Scala, I must admit that this thead is going all
in the wrong direction...

The way to success is not by comparing oneself to other's success but by doing
best what one does.

To me talks of overcoming Java or becoming "better Java" or whatnot, is just
not worth it. Scala is what it is and has achieved what it has by it's own
merits.

Comparing and it to Java and calling it "Java done right", just throws people
off the real scent and might just do disservice to the Scala as people will
expect much different things than what Scala has to offer (For one, the syntax
is just so much different, that it is just nonsensical to compare it to Java).

Another thing for S ala is that it need not be the JVM only language... It
might just as well live in CLR or it's own VM (or even compile to a native
machine code). At least the promise of that was what drew me first to take a
look at Scala...

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Perrett [mailto:tperrett@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:54 AM
To: Ray Racine
Cc: scala-user@listes.epfl.ch
Subject: Re: [scala-user] IDE is the first imperative of Scala

Ray,

100% agree with your thoughts. I simply can't belive the thread
starter can't understand that there are those of us who value language
features over tool features; scala:cc is more than enough to be
productive right out of the box with what is a very capable and
productive language.

Cheers, Tim

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Aug 2009, at 01:01, Ray Racine wrote:

> Pouring yet more gas on the fire...
>
> First I do understand why most "need" something like Eclipse and I'm
> not going to rain on their parade. But this "without Eclipse one is
> limited with playing with toy Scala programs typed in some
> equivalent of Notepad, because real projects _need_ Eclipse ..."
>
> You must be joking. Seriously.
>
> The vast majority have _no_ idea how constraining and limiting some
> people view things like Eclipse and Netbeans. For those who code
> dilly-dally a few hours a day as a job, sure an IDE offers
> productivity improvement.
>
> For those who take their software development seriously, as a
> dedicated profession, nothing and I mean nothing, beats a finely
> tuned Unix system, shell, command line, scripts, a properly
> configured emacs, SBT etc. for a substantive project. Few are
> willing to invest the time to strive for the necessary mastery, to
> become facile with unix, shell, scripts, the command-line, emacs
> customization and elisp programming along with general familiarity
> with a host of tools and utilities.
>
> For those who do, however, these IDE's look like little more the
> glorified and rather anemic, steroidal Notepads. They are
> productivity killers.
>
> That said, there is no doubt that solid, comprehensive Eclipse
> support is necessary for Scala's continued growth. That is a
> given. It is absolutely incorrect to assume that it is necessary
> whatsoever for serious project work in Scala.
>
> Ray
>

I guess you don't realise that emacs and IDEA are IDEs.

2009/8/10 Wu GuangChun :
> Did you see all the correspondings? Everything is clear, we do need a free
> usable productive IDE.
> Scala's target is to become the next generation of Java, not the next
> generation of python.
>
> Maybe some people prefer command line, Emacs or IDEA, but they are and will
> always be minority.
> Most of us need to use scala in real projects, not just for learning. You
> can't require all the team members to use Notepad. Without a good IDE, it's
> certainly less productive than Java, even though more language features are
> provided.
>
> We can't adopt a new language for NOTHING.
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:23 AM, De Gao wrote:
>>
>> Please be serious, bro. This is not a forum like in china that you can
>> guanshui freely. For your opinion at least you should explain instead of
>> only complain.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> De Gao
>> 2009-08-10
>> ________________________________
>
>

The comparison between Scala and Java is a very valid one.  Scala has always set out to be a language that explicitly targets the JVM and attempts  to interoperate with Java as closely as possible, even to the point that an application can be migrated from Java to Scala one class at a time.
In this sense, "Java done right" is just shorthand for "A language written to explicitly target the JVM that supports proven effective features such as immutability by default and actor-based concurrency and first class functions and closures and continuations and not having checked exceptions".
There are other languages besides Java and Scala  that run on the JVM, but the only two originally devised for the platform were Clojure and JavaFX.  JavaFX was never intended as a general purpose language and Clojure is perhaps too big a departure from traditional Java for general developers to consider migrating.  This therefore leaves Scala as the most obvious migration path for developers wanting to move towards a functional programming style but reducing their learning curve at first by keeping existing Java frameworks.
Should we compare Scala and Java?Yes.  But not to denigrate Scala.  It should be done to market Scala to general Java developers.  Developers are people too, and most have a very human fear of change.  Pointing out areas of similarity will go a long way towards reducing fear and encouraging adoption.
This thread is a classic case study of the phenomenon.  Having the same tools available for Scala as for Java simply helps reduce the fear that it is different.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Roland Tepp <roland@videobet.com> wrote:

While not very experienced in Scala, I must admit that this thead is going all
in the wrong direction...

The way to success is not by comparing oneself to other's success but by doing
best what one does.

To me talks of overcoming Java or becoming "better Java" or whatnot, is just
not worth it. Scala is what it is and has achieved what it has by it's own
merits.

Comparing and it to Java and calling it "Java done right", just throws people
off the real scent and might just do disservice to the Scala as people will
expect much different things than what Scala has to offer (For one, the syntax
is just so much different, that it is just nonsensical to compare it to Java).

Another thing for S ala is that it need not be the JVM only language... It
might just as well live in CLR or it's own VM (or even compile to a native
machine code). At least the promise of that was what drew me first to take a
look at Scala...

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Perrett [mailto:tperrett@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:54 AM
To: Ray Racine
Cc: scala-user@listes.epfl.ch
Subject: Re: [scala-user] IDE is the first imperative of Scala

Ray,

100% agree with your thoughts. I simply can't belive the thread
starter can't understand that there are those of us who value language
features over tool features; scala:cc is more than enough to be
productive right out of the box with what is a very capable and
productive language.

Cheers, Tim

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Aug 2009, at 01:01, Ray Racine <ray.racine@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pouring yet more gas on the fire...
>
> First I do understand why most "need" something like Eclipse and I'm
> not going to rain on their parade.  But this "without Eclipse one is
> limited with  playing with toy Scala programs typed in some
> equivalent of Notepad, because real projects _need_ Eclipse ..."
>
> You must be joking.  Seriously.
>
> The vast majority have _no_ idea how constraining and limiting some
> people view things like Eclipse and Netbeans.  For those who code
> dilly-dally a few hours a day as a job, sure an IDE offers
> productivity improvement.
>
> For those who take their software development seriously, as a
> dedicated profession,  nothing and I mean nothing, beats a finely
> tuned Unix system, shell, command line, scripts, a properly
> configured emacs, SBT etc. for a substantive project.  Few are
> willing to invest the time to strive for the necessary mastery, to
> become facile with unix, shell, scripts, the command-line, emacs
> customization and elisp programming along with general familiarity
> with a host of tools and utilities.
>
> For those who do, however, these IDE's look like little more the
> glorified and rather anemic, steroidal Notepads.  They are
> productivity killers.
>
> That said, there is no doubt that solid, comprehensive Eclipse
> support is necessary for Scala's continued growth.  That is a
> given.  It is absolutely incorrect to assume that it is necessary
> whatsoever for serious project work in Scala.
>
> Ray
>

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Roland Tepp <roland@videobet.com> wrote:

Comparing and it to Java and calling it "Java done right", just throws people
off the real scent and might just do disservice to the Scala as people will
expect much different things than what Scala has to offer (For one, the syntax
is just so much different, that it is just nonsensical to compare it to Java).

Remember that syntax is only skin deep but semantics go to the bone.  Groovy has a syntax very similar to Java's but its semantics are, in most dimensions, farther from Java's because of its dynamic typing and metaprogramming.  Compared to Scala, C++ has a syntax that's also closer to Java, but it's much, much easier to translate Java to Scala than Java to C++.

Saying that Scala is "Java done right" is a great way to get Java-folk to look past syntax issues and discover that they actually already know a great deal of how Scala works.  Then the important differences, the ones that are more than skin deep, can slowly be introduced.

Kevin Wright a écrit :
[...]
> There are other languages besides Java and Scala that run on the JVM,
> but the only two originally devised for the platform were Clojure and
> JavaFX.

Well, and perhaps Groovy, which was the first to be acknowledged as
another language for the jvm, and is said to be far more java looking
than Scala, even if it's dynamically typed. Well, at least, a lot of
Java dev seems more at ease with it than with Scala.

Scala has other advantage over Groovy, but just don't forget it when you
want to argue ;)

You're right!
I totally forgot about Groovy, there goes all my credibility :)

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:09 PM, fanf42@gmail.com <fanf42@gmail.com> wrote:

Kevin Wright a écrit :
[...]

There are other languages besides Java and Scala  that run on the JVM, but the only two originally devised for the platform were Clojure and JavaFX.  

Well, and perhaps Groovy, which was the first to be acknowledged as another language for the jvm, and is said to be far more java looking than Scala, even if it's dynamically typed. Well, at least, a lot of Java dev seems more at ease with it than with Scala.

Scala has other advantage over Groovy, but just don't forget it when you want to argue ;)

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Randall R Schulz <rschulz@sonic.net> wrote:

I still think of Groovy vs. Scala as a scruffies vs. neats thing.

Now that's just blatant trolling... 

On Monday August 10 2009, fanf42@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
>
> Scala has other advantage over Groovy, but just don't forget it when
> you want to argue ;)

I still think of Groovy vs. Scala as a scruffies vs. neats thing.

RRS

On Monday August 10 2009, Kevin Wright wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > I still think of Groovy vs. Scala as a scruffies vs. neats thing.
>
> Now that's just blatant trolling...

Believe what you want, but it's a valid observation. And I don't have a
problem with scruffies, it's just a different approach to programming.

Randall Schulz

James,

On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 06:03 -0700, James Iry wrote:

[ . . . ]
> Saying that Scala is "Java done right" is a great way to get Java-folk
> to look past syntax issues and discover that they actually already
> know a great deal of how Scala works. Then the important differences,
> the ones that are more than skin deep, can slowly be introduced.
>
The way I say it in the talks I give is "Scala may become what Java
could have been."

Don't forget that the syntactic differences between Scala and Java are
very strong hooks for the semantic differences.

But this has all long since drifted from the subject of the thread --
which perhaps ought to be changed :-)

PS I am with the people who argue that using IDEs is fine, but that
using a text editor and the command line is equally fine, it is just
another equally effective and efficient work practice.

PPS I still think type erasure is the single biggest mess the JVM has
force upon the world.

On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 09:28 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> On Monday August 10 2009, Kevin Wright wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > I still think of Groovy vs. Scala as a scruffies vs. neats thing.
> >
> > Now that's just blatant trolling...
>
> Believe what you want, but it's a valid observation. And I don't have a
> problem with scruffies, it's just a different approach to programming.

Difficult issue. Taken is the right spirit, the labels are fine, and
indeed humorous -- in the context of this audience and this thread I
certainly have no problems with them. Taken out of context, or used
maliciously, analogies like this can lead to nastiness. I think it is
probably best that it be avoided.

On Tuesday August 11 2009, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 09:28 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > On Monday August 10 2009, Kevin Wright wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > > I still think of Groovy vs. Scala as a scruffies vs. neats
> > > > thing.
> > >
> > > Now that's just blatant trolling...
> >
> > Believe what you want, but it's a valid observation. And I don't
> > have a problem with scruffies, it's just a different approach to
> > programming.
>
> Difficult issue. Taken is the right spirit, the labels are fine, and
> indeed humorous -- in the context of this audience and this thread I
> certainly have no problems with them. Taken out of context, or used
> maliciously, analogies like this can lead to nastiness. I think it
> is probably best that it be avoided.

It is an age-old distinction. Sort of an east-coast / west-coast thing.

By the way, I made the same observation probably about two years ago on
the Groovy mailing list. It did not incite any wars or flame fests,
though it did require some explanation for those not native speakers of
English.

RRS

On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 06:37 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
[ . . . ]
> It is an age-old distinction. Sort of an east-coast / west-coast thing.
>
> By the way, I made the same observation probably about two years ago on
> the Groovy mailing list. It did not incite any wars or flame fests,
> though it did require some explanation for those not native speakers of
> English.

Indeed -- though the east coast/west coast reference is, I suspect,
peculiarly American :-)

I think the lack of flaming speaks to the maturity, confidence and
penchant for humour, of the Groovy community.

Randall R Schulz schrieb:
>>>>> I still think of Groovy vs. Scala as a scruffies vs. neats
>>>>> thing.
>
> It is an age-old distinction. Sort of an east-coast / west-coast thing.

scruffies is East Coast/MIT while neats is West Coast/Stanford and old
Europe, i gather from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neats_vs._scruffies

Right?

- Florian.

On Tuesday August 11 2009, Florian Hars wrote:
> Randall R Schulz schrieb:
> >>>>> I still think of Groovy vs. Scala as a scruffies vs. neats
> >>>>> thing.
> >
> > It is an age-old distinction. Sort of an east-coast / west-coast
> > thing.
>
> scruffies is East Coast/MIT while neats is West Coast/Stanford and
> old Europe, i gather from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neats_vs._scruffies
>
> Right?

Well, as a twelve-year-old, I have only the Internet to go on, but that
is consistent with my understanding of the historical context of the
Neats vs. Scruffies divide, yes.

> - Florian.

Randall Schulz