A couple of weeks ago I started learning Scala. I can highly recommend it. The language has a lot of great approaches to multithreading and scalability. The reason why I like Scala is because it is so simple yet powerful.
Of course doing something at home influences work. I decided to write a build tool for the Hobnox AudioTool which is about 200 lines of Scala code. Cool thing is that this tool replaces a manually maintained Ant build and all project dependencies are always correct. Plus analyzing the dependencies in a more powerful way allows me to spawn the compiler in parallel. Building the AudioTool is now twice as fast and much more comfortable.
When learning a new programming language you also learn about new concepts. Functional languages in general have a different approach to nullable types. I know Scala is not the only one but let me introduce the concept in terms of ActionScript.
When you have a method that returns either a result or nothing: what do you do? Imagine you have some kind of service and a Dictionary of users. Requesting a user works by his unique id. The Dictionary is private to the class since you want to keep it read only.
function getUser(id: String): User {
return hasUser(id) ? users[id] : null;
}
If I would now simply ask the service for an unknown user and do something like if(getUser('xyz').isLoggedIn) { trace('Hooray'); } I could probably and up with a null-reference error. No one checks for me if the user exists. So what else could we do? Write a lot of boilerplate code and prepend a check if the user is null or not each time we request one from the service. A much better approach in my opinion is to throw an error as early as possible. In this case we would rewrite the method to something like this:
function getUser(id: String): User {
if(hasUser(id)) return users[id];
throw new NoSuchUserError(id);
}
In this scenario we get informed about the error as early as possible. But we are stuck again. First of all ActionScript does not enforce you to catch possible exceptions. This means if you do not read the documentation of a method carefully or look into the source code of a method before calling it somewhere you will never know that it throws an exception. And what if we are actually in a scenario where we do not expect errors for non-existing objects? Think of the Dictionary object throwing each time an error when you access it and the result is null. How could I even check if an object exists in a Dictionary?
try {
dictionary[key];
return true;
}
catch(noSuchElementError: NoSuchElementError) {
return false;
}
I guess you see that this can not be the solution to our problem. In a real world example you may deal with your own collection of objects instead of a Dictionary of course. So we have to get rid of exceptions and null for the optimal solution. Scala’s approach to this problem is the Option type. We always abuse null as a placeholder when we want to express that an element does not exist. The Option means that either Some or None result exists. Rewriting our getUser function using this approach would yield the following ActionScript code.
function getUser(id: String): Option {
return hasUser(id) ? new Some(user[id]) : new None();
}
Why is this much better than the old approach? When calling the method you will always know that the method has only an optional result value. We get rid of the exception and null values. Our only problem at the moment is ActionScript. The result is now untyped. In an ideal world this method would be written as:
function getUser(id: String): Option.<User> {
return hasUser(id) ? new Some.<User>(user[id]) : new None.<User>();
}
However we can still tackle this issue by implementing null-representations of our objects. Imagine the User class. You could rewrite the code to something like this.
function getUser(id: String): IUser {
return hasUser(id) ? user[id] : new NullUser();
}
final class NullUser implements IUser {
public function get isLoggedIn(): Boolean { return false; }
public function get name(): String { return 'null'; }
}
And even if you are interested in null-reference errors you could rewrite your code to something like this:
final class NullUser implements IUser {
public function get isLoggedIn(): Boolean {
CONFIG::ThrowNullReferenceErrors { throw new NullReferenceError(); }
return false;
}
public function get name(): String {
CONFIG:: ThrowNullReferenceErrors { throw new NullReferenceError(); }
return 'null';
}
}
It is definitely a very different approach. A functional language like Scala allows you to deal much better with Options. But it makes sense to diferentiate between an uninitialized variable which is null and an optional result of a function. Unfortunately this is at the moment very painful with the lack of generics in ActionScript.
A couple of weeks ago I started learning Scala. I can highly recommend it. The language has a lot of great approaches to multithreading and scalability. The reason why I like Scala is because it is so simple yet powerful.
Of course doing something at home influences work. I decided to write a build tool for the Hobnox AudioTool which is about 200 lines of Scala code. Cool thing is that this tool replaces a manually maintained Ant build and all project dependencies are always correct. Plus analyzing the dependencies in a more powerful way allows me to spawn the compiler in parallel. Building the AudioTool is now twice as fast and much more comfortable.
When learning a new programming language you also learn about new concepts. Functional languages in general have a different approach to nullable types. I know Scala is not the only one but let me introduce the concept in terms of ActionScript.
When you have a method that returns either a result or nothing: what do you do? Imagine you have some kind of
