Disadvantages of Scala type system versus Haskell?

Question

I have read that Scala's type system is weakened by Java interoperability and therefore cannot perform some of the same powers as Haskell's type system. Is this true? Is the weakness because of type erasure, or am I wrong in every way? Is this difference the reason that Scala has no typeclasses?

Answer 1

The big difference is that Scala doesn't have Hindley-Milner global type inference and instead uses a form of local type inference, requiring you to specify types for method parameters and the return type for overloaded or recursive functions.

This isn't driven by type erasure or by other requirements of the JVM. All possible difficulties here can be overcome, and have been, just consider Jaskell - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/JASKELL/Home

H-M inference doesn't work in an object-oriented context. Specifically, when type-polymorphism is used (as opposed to the ad-hoc polymorphism of type classes). This is crucial for strong interop with other Java libraries, and (to a lesser extent) to get the best possible optimisation from the JVM.

It's not really valid to state that either Haskell or Scala has a stronger type system, just that they are different. Both languages are pushing the boundaries for type-based programming in different directions, and each language has unique strengths that are hard to duplicate in the other.

Answer 2

I only have little experenice with Haskell, but the most obvious thing I note that Scala type system different from Haskell is the type inference.

In Scala, there is no global type inference, you must explicit tell the type of function arguments.

For example, in Scala you need to write this:

def add (x: Int, y: Int) = x + y

instead of

add x y = x + y

This may cause problem when you need generic version of add function that work with all kinds of type has the "+" method. There is a workaround for this, but it will get more verbose.

But in real use, I found Scala's type system is powerful enough for daily usage, and I almost never use those workaround for generic, maybe this is because I come from Java world.

And the limitation of explicit declare the type of arguments is not necessary a bad thing, you need document it anyway.

Answer 3

Scala's type system is different from Haskell's, although Scala's concepts are sometimes directly inspired by Haskell's strengths and its knowledgeable community of researchers and professionals.

Of course, running on a VM not primarily intended for functional programming in the first place creates some compatibility concerns with existing languages targeting this platform. Because most of the reasoning about types happens at compile time, the limitations of Java (as a language and as a platform) at runtime are nothing to be concerned about (except Type Erasure, although exactly this bug seems to make the integration into the Java ecosystem more seamless).

As far as I know the only "compromise" on the type system level with Java is a special syntax to handle Raw Types. While Scala doesn't even allow Raw Types anymore, it accepts older Java class files with that bug. Maybe you have seen code like List[_] (or the longer equivalent List[T] forSome { type T }). This is a compatibility feature with Java, but is treated as an existential type internally too and doesn't weaken the type system.

Scala's type system does support type classes, although in a more verbose way than Haskell. I suggest reading this paper, which might create a different impression on the relative strength of Scala's type system (the table on page 17 serves as a nice list of very powerful type system concepts).

Not necessarily related to the power of the type system is the approach Scala's and Haskell's compilers use to infer types, although it has some impact on the way people write code. Having a powerful type inference algorithm can make it worthwhile to write more abstract code (you can decide yourself if that is a good thing in all cases).

In the end Scala's and Haskell's type system are driven by the desire to provide their users with the best tools to solve their problems, but have taken different paths to that goal.

Answer 4

another interesting point to consider is that Scala directly supports the classical OO-style. Which means, there are subtype relations (e.g. List is a subclass of Seq). And this makes type inference more tricky. Add to this the fact that you can mix in traits in Scala, which means that a given type can have multiple supertype relations (making it yet more tricky)

Answer 5

Well are they Turing reducible?

See Oleg Kiselyov's page http://okmij.org/ftp/ ... One can implement the lambda calculus in Haskell's type system. If Scala can do that, then in a sense Haskell's type system and Scala's type system compute the same types. The questions are: How natural is one over the other? How elegant is one over the other?

Answer 6

Scala does not have rank-n types, although it may be possible to work around this limitation in certain cases.