I like a lot of Scala but dislike implicits. I feel like it is the wrong abstraction in that it is similar to implicit type conversion in C/C++, making it harder to reason about what the code is doing and navigating to the types/methods being called.
replyI prefer extension methods for what Scala implicits do [1], [2]. The only part that is lacking with extension methods is to be able to extend a type to implement an interface, e.g. Comparable, but you can create extension methods that return anonymous objects [3].
[1] https://kotlinlang.org/docs/extensions.html#anonymous-extens...
[2] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-...
[3] https://discuss.kotlinlang.org/t/extensions-function-to-impl...
>it's such a joy to write code in Scala.
replyYes, but also a bit of a torture to read code in it..
Agree. Really enjoy it—without type effects libs.
replyCurious what you meant about the effect system BS?
replyI'm assuming they mean Scala doesn't have the tortured Haskell IO monad.
replyScala doesn't have an IO monad by default, but ZIO, CatsEffect, and probably others are fairly popular in at least some parts of the community. IMO it's kind of the worst of both worlds (all the complexity, none of the guarantees), but it's definitely there.
replyOh. It does. https://github.com/zio/zio
replyThankfully, not in the core language :)
This is perhaps why the comment added "Just like Martin Odersky intended it to be!"
replyThere are just too many ways to use Scala, and everyone thinks they're doing it "idiomatically".