[rules-dev] Scala

[Michal Bali]

I like the idea of using Scala. And I am also looking forward to the
fit-for-rules replacement! :)

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Michael Neale <michael.neale at gmail.com>wrote:

> Yes but then another format comes along ;)
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Michael Rhoden
> <mrhoden at franklinamerican.com> wrote:
> > While not just stay with Java? I don't understand the need to mix another
> > language into codebase, which has little support compared to java. If
> it's
> > just to make your efforts a little faster, I would argue you loose value
> in
> > the project by having yet another aspect to the learning curve for every
> > other developer.
> >
> > Betamax was better than VHS and laser disc was before it's time.
> Sometimes
> > it pays to follow the masses, when you expect them to use your product ;)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Neale" <michael.neale at gmail.com>
> > To: "Rules Dev List" <rules-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:41:42 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> > Subject: Re: [rules-dev] Scala
> >
> > Yeah netbeans is getting pretty decent scala support - improving all the
> > time.
> >
> > people are using the eclipse one, so it is slowly getting better, its
> > just that it is unstable that troubles me.
> >
> > yes, as Mark said, groovy is fine, but its quite a different language
> > in semantics if not syntax. Whereas scala is probably more a 1 for 1
> > replacement (although it can have a stepper learning curve in some
> > areas) and a very fast powerful language (not that for this bit speed
> > is too sensitive).
> >
> > Whilst initially there may not be automated refactorings, as it is a
> > static language (you tend to never require reflection in it) it can
> > cope with manual refactorings much better then java (as you get
> > compile errors and warnings for any missed changes).
> >
> > Initially I am looking at it for a testing module that uses
> > spreadsheets, so will see how that goes (its fairly isolated).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Edson Tirelli <tirelli at post.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>    I like the functional aspect of scala and the way it promotes some
> >> modeling good practices. The main worry is really, once we start
> >> implementing things on it, to maintain that codebase, and for that
> tooling
> >> is paramount. So, if maven works well and IntelliJ can do some minimum
> >> work
> >> on refactories, I like the idea of an incremental inclusion of scala
> >> components where they make sense.
> >>
> >>    []s
> >>    Edson
> >>
> >> 2009/1/11 Michael Neale <michael.neale at gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> Hey All. I have been looking into scala for sometime, and recently
> >>> started using it for a testing tool (kind of a replacement for the
> >>> "fit for rules" library).
> >>> I have been quite impressed with it, the tool integration (with
> >>> intelliJ) is outstanding, and it works nice with maven (even with
> >>> mixed java source).
> >>>
> >>> Assuming this goes well, I am thinking of extending the usage of scala
> >>> to the server side components of bits of guvnor (obviously the client
> >>> is still GWT). Probably in a small way at first (I have found that
> >>> common annoying bits of code in java can be much clearer in scala -
> >>> examples to come !).
> >>>
> >>> I was interested in what people think about this? Does it make it
> >>> harder for people to get into the code (I am not aiming to write the
> >>> densest scala, just use it when approriate)?
> >>>
> >>> The main downsides I see are: Eclipse support - the plugin for eclipse
> >>> for scala is not great at the moment (netbeans or intelliJ would be
> >>> better), and general familiarity for people to read (although I
> >>> personally think it would take anyone who reads this list minutes to
> >>> learn enough to follow the simple things I would do).
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts? Objections?
> >>>
> >>> FAQ: Why scala? well its closer to java in intent then all other
> >>> popular JVM languages (ie its static) and compiles down similarly to
> >>> result in similar performance (better in some cases). I use "closures"
> >>> a lot (thanks to GWT that got be in the habit) but the inner class way
> >>> of doing it in java gets combersome.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Michael D Neale
> >>> home: www.michaelneale.net
> >>> blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> rules-dev mailing list
> >>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>  Edson Tirelli
> >>  JBoss Drools Core Development
> >>  JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rules-dev mailing list
> >> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael D Neale
> > home: www.michaelneale.net
> > blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-dev mailing list
> > rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-dev mailing list
> > rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Michael D Neale
> home: www.michaelneale.net
> blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20090113/3c7909b9/attachment.html