Ben Matthews

  • New here on lemmy, will add more info later …
  • Also on mdon: @benjhm@scicomm.xyz
  • Try my interactive climate / futures model: SWIM
  • 0 Posts
  • 105 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • This article feels to me really out of date. Scala3 was launched nearly five years ago, The tooling and lib-support was indeed dodgy back then but works very smoothly now. Scala3 also broke Scala2 macros, and some people whose business-model was selling support for clever libraries built on those macros made a lot of fuss (bad publicity). Meanwhile Scala3 has new more robust macros which work fine.

    I develop in scala an interactive climate-scenario model web-app . It’s running the model in your browser (500 years x 250 countries x many gases, sectors, feedbacks etc. - so it’s complex)… The scala code compiles to js (or wasm) -which is what runs this web app - but the same code also compiles with scala-native to run fast batch- calculations or tests. It also compiles to the jvm app like my older java code, but I rarely use this now.

    Scala3 code looks more like python than java - minimal brackets, and much nicer to read and higher level than rust.
    As for tools I just use Zed editor with Metals for LS, Mill for build, and other libs from the lihaoyi ecosystem, no web ‘frameworks’. Scala is both robust and flexible. In general - if the code compiles, typically it runs correctly first time, if not the very-intelligent compiler identifies precisely what to fix where (very different from so-called ‘AI’). So instead of reams of junk ‘tests’, it’s usually just enough to check whether my climate system plots look and behave as expected - higher level thinking.

    As for Kotlin it was effectively a russian-led (at the time) fork of Scala, staying closer to Java - so less flexible, but they did much more systematic marketing - and I suspect some of that deliberately pushed blog posts knocking Scala.
    What Scala lacks is promotion, so those following fashions of this hype-driven world won’t find it.
    For those who use it, it’s a great language, to do complex stuff that scales robustly.









  • This headline and several others relating to same ‘news’ are mixing up information about 2024 (which is what the GCB data tables show) and 2025 emissions which are expert-projections. Of course it’s useful to project for 2025, to inform the COP in Belem, but big collaborative data assimilation and analysis of sinks takes time, so the accurate data is about 2024 (you can download the most recent GCB data tables ).
    Checking their ‘Key Messages’ for 2025, the headline figure of 38.1 Gt fossil CO2, seems to be a decrease compared to the last figure in the tables for 2024 ( converting units x 12/44 ) . This is hard to reconcile with projected national increases ( but those seem to me - just quick reflection - pessimistic compared with previous carbon-brief analyses ?).
    In general it seems to me science-communicators do not help general understanding promoting reports by muddling up the years - global trends are changing, and blips related to weather and geopolitics vary from year to year. We’ll have more blips still to come this year.





  • I don’t agree with this, the answer is not collapse. To me complexity is beautiful, creating and maintaining complexity is the essence of what it is to be alive. Although I’m no fan of hierarchy or big capital, there are better systems for organising, balancing feedbacks, and we need to keep thinking about ways to do this (which is why we’re here on lemmy).
    While medieval societies based more on tribal loyalty were more unequal and hierarchical than modern ones, as well as sustaining far fewer people until the next famine or pandemic.