1. 11

  2. 4

    When I started reading this article I saw something like this:

    Scala shows a 0.2% decline in the PYPL index.

    First thought I had was “so what?” Second thought was why is this article making a big deal about a rounding error?

    I couldn’t read the rest with it making wild conclusions.

    1. 4

      I had to search for this index, I only knew the mostly useless TIOBE index of so far.

      I had an ex-colleague who was checking TIOBE every week to know what language is worth studying to get a new job, because he was always complaining about that job. He never did actually learn a new language, I guess he is still there, complaining 😀. Yeah, just checked it on LinkedIn, he is still there.

      I learnt Scala (the basics) in those times, and the guy kept telling me It is not worth it, it has a backwards TIOBE position. Well, I never earned a single cent with Scala (yet), but I’m working on an F# project right now, which is not even on the PYPL index :) So who cares about these indices?

      1. 2

        They don’t really directly index what they are being used to infer.

      2. 1

        It depends on what that 0.2% is relative to, though. If it’s 0.2% to Scala use the previous year, it might be negligible. If it is 0.2% of all languages, it could mean a lot for a relatively obscure language like Scala (if, say, the index had Scala at 0.5% use last year). Considering indexes usually report percentages or global issue, I’d guess the latter. That said, I haven’t read the article yet, so I might be wrong.

      3. 3

        Maybe what should be written off is checking sites like PYPL.

        1. 2

          Scala is a great language, but this seems to focus more on usage metrics and history than the Scala language itself.

          I’ll tell you in one sentence a major draw to Scala, more than this whole article: Using the parallel collections library along with functional programming to do concurrent operations on large collections. Parallel programming is made trivial. There are concise examples on the overview page in the standard library documentation.


          1. 1

            IME parallel collections are dangerous. In an interactive application any operation expensive enough that they’d be appealing should probably also be cancellable. They’re actually a good example of one of one of Scala’s ills: a random masters thesis bolted onto the language. They don’t mix well with other Scala defaults, like pervasive use of linked lists, which must be copied into a vector by .par.

            I’m sure they have their uses, but I think that they belong in a library rather than the core language.

            1. 2

              I’m sure they have their uses, but I think that they belong in a library rather than the core language.

              Seems like the parallel collections have indeed been factored out into a library.

          2. 1

            Scala could SNATCH so much territory in software if they would literally just ditch SBT. It would be that easy.