Thursday, December 01, 2011
 

Scala, EJB and real language engineering


Recently there is this battle around Scala going on: sceptical opinions are raised by some people claiming Scala is too complex, hard to learn, tools being suboptimal and generally, not delivering on the advertised productivity improvements. The discussions got started by this article and continues with this one.

Now, I am not the person to judge this stuff. I do think Java needs improvement, I like many of Scala's ideas, but I do realize it is a powerful, complex language.

Scala people typically say that there are two distinct roles of Scala users: library authors and library users. And only the library authors need to deal with Scala's advanced and complex type system (which is the source of many of the reported complexity problems). Critics say that the complexity "shines through" even to library users.

I have been working a lot on language design and implementation, in the context of DSLs. More recently, with the mbeddr.com project, I have dealt a lot with C and extensions to it. We're doing this based on the MPS language workbench. Using a language workbench really distinguishes between language designer/implementor and language user. Instead of implementing interesting new features via meta programming, flexible syntax and type system magic, one can simply implement language extensions, using real language engineering techniques. And the user really doesn't see any of this: the extension feels absolutely like a real language extension.

While I realize that there are issues with this approach as well (actually, there's only one issue: you have to use MPS to write code) I think the approach is much much better in general. Let's face it: many of the things done in Scala libraries are, from a user's perspective, language extensions. But in Scala, the IDE doesn't know about them, and some of the implementation complexity does shine through. I think that, if we do language extension, we should do it with the right tools.

PS: There isn't just MPS. You can do many of these things with SDF/Spoofax or Rascal as well.
 
Comments:
Language design isn't less complex then using scala - at least in my experience. To get the Language and the generator right can be quite tricky. That said - I have only used Xtext so far.
 
The design isn't less complex, but the implementation is, once you've learned the tools. And in my experience, MPS is *way* simpler for non-trivial languages than Xtext.

But my main point is this: the separation between language designer and language user is clearer. None of the language implementation techniques "shines through" to the language user. And you get real, native IDE support!
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

back to voelter.de

ABOUT ME
This is Markus Voelter's Blog. It is not intended as a replacement for my regular web site, but rather as a companion that contains ideas, thoughts and loose ends.

ARCHIVES
December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / February 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / June 2010 / July 2010 / August 2010 / September 2010 / October 2010 / November 2010 / December 2010 / January 2011 / March 2011 / April 2011 / May 2011 / June 2011 / July 2011 / October 2011 / November 2011 / December 2011 / January 2012 / February 2012 / October 2012 / January 2013 /

FEED
You can get an atom feed for this blog.