One team that gave up on Scala

(written by lawrence krubner, however indented passages are often quotes). You can contact lawrence at:, or follow me on Twitter.

It’s interesting how Scala was initially seen as “A Better Java” but now is seen as having been to experimental in its approach.

I remember when I first saw the potential issues of scaling Scala at Gravity back in 2009/10ish. It was close to the end of the day when we had a major issue reported in production that was affecting our large customers. Several of us started investigating and were able to track the source of the issue. The only problem was we had no idea what the code was doing at first. We came across a strange symbol we hadn’t seen in our projects before. The spaceship operator <|*|> . Someone said out loud “what the hell is that?”. There was some other implicit magic going on that wasn’t immediately apparent. A CMD+B to traverse into the method yielded nothing in our IDE as it couldn’t find the symbol (IDE’s have improved here since). A quick googling of “<|*|>” yielded nothing as well. We were stumped and didn’t have sources pulled down. [1]

The developer who wrote the code was unreachable on vacation so we had to figure it out. We noticed a new library was being included called scalaz, hours later we had tracked down the mystery symbol and grok’d what was going on, made the fix and life was good again. That blip turned a fix that should have taken minutes into a fix that took hours. That was the point I started seeing the split in our engineering team.

Scala is a powerful language, it comes from academic roots and gives enough flexibility that you can easily start writing “write-once” type code. Scala developers typically travel down two paths: You have the “it’s a better java ” camp you have the “I (heart) Applicative Functors” camp.

Post external references

  1. 1