|about 4 years ago||8 days ago|
|Apache License 2.0||Apache License 2.0|
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
We haven't tracked posts mentioning Linter yet.
Tracking mentions began in Dec 2020.
Which static analysis tool do you use for Scala?
8 projects | reddit.com/r/scala | 12 Jan 2022
There is also wartremover but you cannot run it separately from your compile command.
Newspeak and Domain Modeling
4 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 29 Jun 2021
or `NonUnitStatements` without explicit annotation.
This effectively locks you into writing pure code (you can extend the linter to cover other things like not using `Future` or not using Java libs outside of `MonadError` from cats). The linters operate on typed ASTs at compile time, and have plugins for the most popular scala build tools. Coupled with `-XFatalWarnings', you can guarantee that nothing unexpected happens unless you explicitly pop the escape hatch, for the most part.
You can still bring in external libraries that haven't been compiled with these safties in place, so you aren't completely safe, but if you use ZIO/Typelevel libraries you can be reasonably assured of referentially transparent code in practice.
There are three schools of thought, roughly, in the scala community towards the depth of using the type system and linters to provide guarantees and capabilities, currently:
1) Don't attempt to do this, it makes the barrier to entry to high for Scala juniors. I don't understand this argument - you want to allow runtime footguns you could easily prevent at compile time because the verifiable techniques take time to learn? Why did you even choose to use a typesafe language and pay the compilation time penalty that comes with it?
2) Abstract everything to the smallest possible dependency interface, including effects (code to an effect runtime, F[_] that implements the methods your code needs to run - if you handle errors, F implements MonadError, if you output do concurrent things, F implements Concurrent, etc.) and you extend the effect with your own services using tagless final or free.
3) You still use effect wrappers, but you bind the whole project always to use a concrete effect type, avoiding event abstraction, thus making it easier to code, and limiting footguns to a very particular subset (mainly threadpool providers and unsafeRun or equivalent being called eagerly in the internals of applications).
My opinion is that smallest interface with effect guarantees (#2) is best for very large, long maintenance window apps where thechoice of effect runtime might change(app), or is out of the devs' control (lib); and #3 is best for small apps.
TL/DR; You can go a really, really long way to guaranteeing effects don't run in user code in scala. Not all the way like Haskell, but far enough that it's painful to code without conforming to referential transparency.
What are some alternatives?
Scapegoat - Scala compiler plugin for static code analysis
Scalastyle - scalastyle
Scalafix - Refactoring and linting tool for Scala
scalafmt - This repo is now a fork of --->
Scoverage - Scoverage Scala Code Coverage Core Libs
Scurses - Scurses, terminal drawing API for Scala, and Onions, a Scurses framework for easy terminal UI
sbt - sbt, the interactive build tool
Mill - Your shiny new Java/Scala build tool!
dotty - The Scala 3 compiler, also known as Dotty.