<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Language of The Year for 2008 is Scala</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kablambda.org/blog/2008/01/23/the-language-of-the-year-for-2008-is-scala/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kablambda.org/blog/2008/01/23/the-language-of-the-year-for-2008-is-scala/</link>
	<description>Notes on things I'm thinking and doing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:52:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tim Moore</title>
		<link>http://www.kablambda.org/blog/2008/01/23/the-language-of-the-year-for-2008-is-scala/comment-page-1/#comment-554</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Moore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:53:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://diversions.nfshost.com/blog/2008/01/23/the-language-of-the-year-for-2008-is-scala/#comment-554</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I&#039;ve been looking at Scala with interest, and while I think it&#039;s a very interesting language that has the potential to give the best of both worlds from static and dynamic languages. But one thing that&#039;s concerned me is that the community around it seems to value terseness above all else, sometimes at the expense of readability. I usually think of terseness as something that can really help readability, but I&#039;ve seen so much example Scala code with single-letter variable names that really interfere with understanding what the functions are supposed to be doing (a habit I&#039;m sure they picked up from the functional language community and mathematicians before them).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I still think the language could go somewhere if someone uses it to build a framework with immediately obvious value (like Rails was for Ruby). Maybe Lift will be that for Scala, but I wonder if webapp programming is really in Scala&#039;s sweet spot. I guess we&#039;ll see.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been looking at Scala with interest, and while I think it&#8217;s a very interesting language that has the potential to give the best of both worlds from static and dynamic languages. But one thing that&#8217;s concerned me is that the community around it seems to value terseness above all else, sometimes at the expense of readability. I usually think of terseness as something that can really help readability, but I&#8217;ve seen so much example Scala code with single-letter variable names that really interfere with understanding what the functions are supposed to be doing (a habit I&#8217;m sure they picked up from the functional language community and mathematicians before them).</p>

<p>I still think the language could go somewhere if someone uses it to build a framework with immediately obvious value (like Rails was for Ruby). Maybe Lift will be that for Scala, but I wonder if webapp programming is really in Scala&#8217;s sweet spot. I guess we&#8217;ll see.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

