
Simple or Complex? - fogus
http://lamp.epfl.ch/~odersky/blogs/isscalacomplex.html
======
cageface
The more I read of Martin Odersky's writing the more I appreciate his wisdom
and understated intelligence.

I had the same initial reaction to Scala that a lot of people do but once you
start actually using it you soon realize that it really is a fairly simple
language built on a handful of orthogonal concepts. For example, if you look
at the method list of any of the collection classes it may seem extremely
daunting but you soon realize that all the collection classes expose the same
common interface and that beyond that there's a very logical hierarchy of
subtypes with either different or increased functionality. Scala makes it easy
to layer abstractions like this and to incur only the complexity you need to
solve the problem at hand.

As you gain experience you will find yourself using the type system in more
sophisticated ways to make more guarantees of the behavior and correctness of
your code but Martin's stated goal in designing Scala was to build a language
that could scale with the user and the application domain and I think he's
succeeded.

------
jim_dot
At the risk of getting downvoted like crazy, can somebody please explain to me
the point of this blog post? It's just a couple of empty comparisons of Scala
to lego/smartphones and C++/C#/Haskell to morse code.

~~~
paol
The point is stated as clearly as seems possible in the first 4 lines of the
post...

