Scala: An Ambitious Language

In the object paradigm, a system consists of objects with mutable state, whereas in the functional paradigm, it consists of functions and immutable values. At first, these two worlds seem incompatible.

But not so for Odersky. In 2004 he released the first version of Scala, a language that combines both.

Scala’s roots are object-oriented, sharing the same basic constructs as Java, with whom it is fully compatible. Its functional flavor comes from several features borrowed or transposed from concepts in functional languages like Haskell.  This includes first-class and higher-order functions, including currying, but also pattern matching with case classes, and the support for monads and tail recursions.

The mariage is suprisingly elegant. Maybe the two worlds are compatible after all.

But the ambitions of Scala do not stop here. It also aims at beeing scaleable, both in terms of modularity and in terms of expressivity. Scala should support the modularisation of small and large components, and help reduce the gap between the code and the domain concepts.

The many features of the Scala’s type system enables scalability along both axes. Traits enable for instance a fined grained modularisation of object behaviors. Implicit conversions on the other hand enable existing types in libraries to be extended to express code more clearly.

But more importantly, features of the language create synergies. Abstract type members combined with type nesting enable the cake pattern, a form of dependency injection, or family polymorphism, a way to type check constellation of multiple related classes. The support of call-by-name combined with implicits enable the definition of domain specific languages.

You can’t but be amazed by how features sometimes combine. It is for instance possible to map a collection and convert its type at the same time using the special breakout object. You can even pattern match regular expressions!

Such synergies are possible because the foundations of Scala are principled.

  • First, everything is an object. There is no primitive types. Instead, the type hierarchy has two main roots, one for mutable objects (with reference semantics) and one for immutable objects (with value semantics).
  • Second, you can abstract over types, values, and functions using parametrization or abstract members. The three constructs support both forms of abstractions consistently.
  • Third, any object that defines an apply() function can be used as a function. This closes the gap between functions and objects. The inverse of apply() is unapply(). Any object that defines unapply() can be used as an extractor for pattern matching.

Take the expression “val l = List(1,2,3)”. This is not native syntax for list construction, but actually the evaluation of the function “apply” on the singleton object “List” with the arguments “1,2,3”. Or take the expression “val (x,y) = (1,2)”. This is not native syntax for multiple assignments, but tuple unpacking using extractors. These principles enable nice extensions of the language.

The flexibility of Scala has a price though: it is easy to learn Scala on the surface, but mastering its intricacies is challenging.

Also, Scala comes with many additional features that seem to exist more for convenience than necessity, making it even harder to master. It is for instance questionable wether structural typing or default parameter values, to name a few, should really have made it into the language. Clearly they are usefull and alleviate some pain points of Java, but they also distract from the essence of the language. Scala might at times appear to lack focus.

The richness of the language is acknowledged by the Scala community itself. To quote Odersky, “Scala is a bit of a chameleon. It makes many programming tasks refreshingly easy and at the same time contains some pretty intricate constructs that allow experts to design truly advanced typesafe libraries.”

Scala is a language with many very powerful features and with many ways to do things. It’s up to the developers to use the features well and enforce a consistent programming style. For corporations, these two aspects could be a barrier to adoption. In comparison, a language like Kotlin offers the same basic ingredients but is a lot more simple.

The long bet of Odersky seems to pay off though. Scala has found its audience and made its way to the industry, including top players like Twitter or LinkedIn. It has established itself as a viable alternative.

Scala is a source of innovation and inspiration. While functions were already in object-oriented languages like Smalltalk in the 80s, Scala showed that object-orientation doesn’t mean mutability. The resulting programming style “OO in the large, FP in the small” is gaining traction. Having shown that the combination works, other languages will certainly follow this path.

Ten years after its inception, Scala has a mature and vivid community of users. To gain further adoption, it must now consolidate its foundation and keep it stable across releases. Fortunately, we can still count on Odersky to continue to innovate at the same time. At the recent ScalaDays 2015, he unveiled his plan to better control mutations of state, not with monads, but implicit conversions. That is yet another ambitious challenge.

Package Visibility is Broken

In Java, classes and class members have by default package visibility. To restrict or increase the visibility of classes and class members, the access modifiers private, protected, and public must be used.

Modifier Class Package Subclass World
public Y Y Y Y
protected Y Y Y N
no modifier Y Y N N
private Y N N N

(from Controlling Access to Members)

These modifiers control encapsulation along two dimensions: one dimension is the packaging dimension, the other is the subclassing dimension. With these modifiers, it becomes possible to encapsulate code in flexible ways. Sadly, the two dimensions interfere in nasty ways.


A subclass might not see all methods of its superclass, and can thus redeclare a method with an existing name. This is called shadowing or name masking.  For instance, a class and its subclass can both declare a private method foo() without that overriding takes place. This situation is confusing and best to be avoided.

With package visibility, the situation gets worse. Let us consider the snippet below:

package a;
public class A {
int say() {return 1;};
package b;
public class B extends a.A {
int say() {return 2;};
package a;
class Test {
public static void main(String args[]) {
a.A a = new b.B();
System.out.println(a.say()); // prints 1, WTF!!
} }

 (from A thousand years of productivity: the JRebel Story)

The second method B.say() does not override A.say() but shadows it. Consequently, the static type at the call site defines which method will be invoked.

One could argue that everything works as intended, and that it is clear that B.say() does not override A.say() since there is no @Override annotation.

This argument makes sense when private methods are shadowed. In that case, the developer knows about the implementation of the class and can figure this out. For methods with package visibility, the argument is not acceptable since developers shouldn’t have to rely on implementation details of a class, only its visible interface.

The static types in a program should not influence the run-time semantics. The program should work the same whether the variable “a” has static type “A” or “B”.


With reflection, programmers have the ability to inspect and invoke methods in unanticipated ways. Reflections should honor the visibility rules and authorize only legitimate actions. Unfortunately, it’s hard to define what is legitimate or not. Let us consider the snippet below:

class Super {
  public void methodOfSuper() {

public class Sub extends Super {

Method m = Sub.class.getMethod("methodOfSuper");
m.getAnnotations(); // WTF, empty list

Clearly, the method methodOfSuper is publicly exposed by instances of the class Sub. It’s legitimate to be able to reflect upon it from another package. The class Super is however not publicly visible, and its annotations are thus ignored by the reflection machinery.

Package visibility is broken

Package-visibility is a form of visibility between private and protected: some classes have access to the member, but not all (only those in the same package). This visibility sounds appealing to bundle code in small packages, exposing the package API using the public access modifier, and letting classes within the package freely access each others. Unfortunately, as the examples above have shown, this strategy breaks in certain cases.

Accessiblitiy in Java is in a way too flexible. The combination of the fours modifiers with the possibility to inherit and “widen” the visibility of classes and class members can lead to obscure behaviors.

Simpler forms of accessibility should then be preferred. Smalltalk supports for instance inheritance, but without access modifiers; methods are always public and fields are always protected. Go, on the other hand, embraces package visibility, but got rid of inheritance. Simple solutions are easier to get right.


  • In “Moderne Software-Architektur: Umsichtig planen, robust bauen mit Quasar” the author argues that method level visibility makes no sense. Instead, components consist of classes, which are either exposed to the outside (the component interface) of belond to the component’s internals and are hidden (the component implementation). This goes in the direction of OSGi and the future Java module system.

Masterminds of Programming

Masterminds of Programming51-8dA--hLL features exclusive interviews with the creators of popular programming languages. Over 400+ pages, the book collects the views of these inventors over varying topics such as language design, backward compatibility, software complexity, developer productivity, or innovation.

Interestingly, there isn’t so much about language design in the book. The creation of a language seems to happen out of necessity, and the design itself is mostly the realization of an intuitive vision based on gut feelings and bold opinions. The authors’ judgments about trade-offs (e.g. static or dynamic typing, or security vs performance) are surprisingly unbalanced, and when asked to explain the rationale for some design choices, explanation tends to be rather scarce.

Instead, the authors describe with passion the influences that led them to a particular design. The book contains thus a good deal of historical information about the context in which each language was born.

  • C++ was invented to enable system programming with objects
  • Awk was invented to easily process data in a UNIX fashion
  • Basic was invented to teach students programming
  • LUA was invented to easily script components
  • Haskell was invented to unify the functional programming language community
  • SQL was invented to query relational database with an approachable language
  • Objective-C was invented to bring objects to the C world
  • Java was invented to provide a secure language in a networked world
  • C# was invented as the strategic language for the modern Microsoft platform .NET
  • UML was invented as the unification of modeling languages
  • Postscript was invented to enable flexible typesetting and printing
  • Eiffel was invented to make objects robust with contracts

Both the interviewers and interviewees are knowledgeable and articulate. The inventors smoothly distill their experience and insights during semi-structured interviews. Throughout the book, discussions remain mostly general, which both a plus and a minus: the material is accessible to all, but multiple sections have a low information density. The book could be easily shortened with a better editing.

Discussion about software engineering in general turned out to be the one I enjoyed most. Some of the interesting ideas touched in the book were for instance:

  • Simulating projects help acquire experience faster, p.254
  • Classes are units of progress in a system, p.255
  • We need of an economic model of software, p.266
  • Object-oriented programming and immutability are compatible, p.315
  • What UML is good for: useful for data modelling, moderately useful for system decomposition, not so useful for dynamic things, p.342
  • Generating code from UML is a terrible idea, p.339
  • There’s no software crisis; it’s overplayed for shock value, p.354
  • How broken HTML is, and how better it would have been if the web had started with a typesetting language like postscript, p.405

These points come from the late interviews, but there are similarly nice bits and pieces in all chapters; it just turned out that I starting taking notes only half through the book.

Amongst the recurring themes, the notion of simplicity pops out and is discussed multiple times, at the language level and a the software level. Several interviewees quote Einstein’s “Simple as possible, but not simpler”, and emphasize the concepts of minimalism and purity, each in their own way.

The book is also very good at instilling curiosity about unknown languages. I was initially tempted to skip chapters about languages I didn’t know, and am glad that I didn’t. Stack-based languages like Forth and Postscript appear as examples of a  powerful but underlooked paradigm; the chapter about awk almost reconciled me with bash scripting; and the discussion about UML made me reconsider its successthe fact that the whole industry agreed on a common notation for basic language constructs shouldn’t be taken for granted.

In conclusion, this book isn’t essential, but it is enjoyable if you are an all-rounder with some time ahead, you appreciate thinking aloud, and good discussions around a cup of coffee.