Comments on: Scala and IntelliJ IDEA http://codemonkeyism.com/scala-and-intellij-idea/ Wed, 09 May 2012 22:39:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: philip http://codemonkeyism.com/scala-and-intellij-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-170071 philip Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:18:05 +0000 http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2008/09/15/scala-and-intellij-idea/#comment-170071 I posted some comments regarding IntelliJ here http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2008/09/17/scala-and-netbeans/ I posted some comments regarding IntelliJ here

http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2008/09/17/scala-and-netbeans/

]]> By: Daniel Spiewak http://codemonkeyism.com/scala-and-intellij-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-168309 Daniel Spiewak Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:45:14 +0000 http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2008/09/15/scala-and-intellij-idea/#comment-168309 > Are implicits scoped? Perhaps it’s good to have them > some classes or traits. This would prevent the open > classes problem of Ruby and make it easier for IDEs. Hmm. Quite so. :-) Implicits are scoped and have to be explicitly imported (or inherited) from where they are defined. If the function itself is not available *unqualified* in your current referencing context, then the conversion is inapplicable. I haven't written any tooling for Scala, but I would imagine that you are right about it making it easier on IDE writers. > Are implicits scoped? Perhaps it’s good to have them
> some classes or traits. This would prevent the open
> classes problem of Ruby and make it easier for IDEs. Hmm.

Quite so. :-) Implicits are scoped and have to be explicitly imported (or inherited) from where they are defined. If the function itself is not available *unqualified* in your current referencing context, then the conversion is inapplicable. I haven’t written any tooling for Scala, but I would imagine that you are right about it making it easier on IDE writers.

]]> By: stephan http://codemonkeyism.com/scala-and-intellij-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-167302 stephan Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:32:45 +0000 http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2008/09/15/scala-and-intellij-idea/#comment-167302 Daniel: You're right of course. But what I meant with "can't do better": An Ruby IDE could just listen to the runtime VM and all unit tests and gather most of the needed information. I fear that implementing type inference in IDEA and scanning the whole classpath for implicits etc. is not much easier than listening to a running Ruby VM and therefore might take a long time / big effort to implement. Are implicits scoped? Perhaps it's good to have them some classes or traits. This would prevent the open classes problem of Ruby and make it easier for IDEs. Hmm. Daniel: You’re right of course. But what I meant with “can’t do better”:

An Ruby IDE could just listen to the runtime VM and all unit tests and gather most of the needed information.

I fear that implementing type inference in IDEA and scanning the whole classpath for implicits etc. is not much easier than listening to a running Ruby VM and therefore might take a long time / big effort to implement.

Are implicits scoped? Perhaps it’s good to have them some classes or traits. This would prevent the open classes problem of Ruby and make it easier for IDEs. Hmm.

]]> By: Daniel Spiewak http://codemonkeyism.com/scala-and-intellij-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-167294 Daniel Spiewak Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:42:55 +0000 http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2008/09/15/scala-and-intellij-idea/#comment-167294 Theoretically speaking, there's no reason that implicits would make it *impossible* to implement an IDE that is functionally superior to one implemented for a dynamic language. That's not to say that it's easy or always algorithmically efficient, but I don't think there's any danger of impossibility on the horizon. Theoretically speaking, there’s no reason that implicits would make it *impossible* to implement an IDE that is functionally superior to one implemented for a dynamic language. That’s not to say that it’s easy or always algorithmically efficient, but I don’t think there’s any danger of impossibility on the horizon.

]]>