7 ms·

Mate, you should learn Scala before writing about it... scala> def hasUppercase(s: String) = s.exists(_.isUpper) hasUppercase: (s: String)Boolean scala> hasU

by smenko 12y ago

Mate, you should learn Scala before writing about it... scala> def hasUppercase(s: String) = s.exists(_.isUpper) hasUppercase: (s: String)Boolean scala> hasUppercase("Charlie Brown") res2: Boolean = true scala> hasUppercase("schmuck") res3: Boolean = false

chriswarbo 12y ago
From TFA: Please note that, below, when I refer to a multi-paradigm language, such as Scala, as an OOP language, I am specifically referring to the OOP qualities in that language. And I would like you to ask yourself, if you use a multi-paradigm language to write in the “functional” paradigm, are you actually gaining anything from the OOP qualities of that language? Could you perhaps achieve the same thing, more easily, using a language that is fundamentally “functional”, rather than object oriented?
- smenko 12y ago
  Yes, isUpper is a method on Char, _.isUpper is a lambda that is given to exists, which is a method on the trait TraversableOnce, which String happens to implement, along with many other things, such as Option and Future. Where's the OO and where's the functional? In the Clojure example in the OP does the author realise that all of those things are in effect Java objects? Does any of this make the code better or worse? But that's not the point, the Scala code provided there is beyond ignorant, whoever wrote that has no right to be judgemental of the language or its founding paradigms.
- frowaway001 12y ago
  > are you actually gaining anything from the OOP qualities of that language Yes. > Could you perhaps achieve the same thing, more easily, using a language that is fundamentally “functional”, rather than object oriented? No. (That was easy. :-D)
kevinkyyro 12y ago
This blew my mind. The "scala" example he used was literally a java code snippet pulled from here http://batsov.com/articles/2011/05/12/jvm-langs-clojure/ http://batsov.com/articles/2011/05/12/jvm-langs-clojure/ IT'S LITERALLY JAVA SYNTAX, COMPLETELY INVALID SCALA.

by smenko 12y ago

chriswarbo 12y ago

From TFA: Please note that, below, when I refer to a multi-paradigm language, such as Scala, as an OOP language, I am specifically referring to the OOP qualities in that language. And I would like you to ask yourself, if you use a multi-paradigm language to write in the “functional” paradigm, are you actually gaining anything from the OOP qualities of that language? Could you perhaps achieve the same thing, more easily, using a language that is fundamentally “functional”, rather than object oriented?

smenko 12y ago
Yes, isUpper is a method on Char, _.isUpper is a lambda that is given to exists, which is a method on the trait TraversableOnce, which String happens to implement, along with many other things, such as Option and Future. Where's the OO and where's the functional? In the Clojure example in the OP does the author realise that all of those things are in effect Java objects? Does any of this make the code better or worse? But that's not the point, the Scala code provided there is beyond ignorant, whoever wrote that has no right to be judgemental of the language or its founding paradigms.
frowaway001 12y ago
> are you actually gaining anything from the OOP qualities of that language Yes. > Could you perhaps achieve the same thing, more easily, using a language that is fundamentally “functional”, rather than object oriented? No. (That was easy. :-D)

kevinkyyro 12y ago

This blew my mind. The "scala" example he used was literally a java code snippet pulled from here http://batsov.com/articles/2011/05/12/jvm-langs-clojure/ http://batsov.com/articles/2011/05/12/jvm-langs-clojure/ IT'S LITERALLY JAVA SYNTAX, COMPLETELY INVALID SCALA.