1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
|
@import BookData._
@p
Scala.js compiles Scala code to equivalent, executable Javascript. Here's the compilation of a trivial hello-world example:
@split
@half
@hl.scala
object Main extends js.JSApp{
def main() = {
var x = 0
while(x < 10) x += 3
println(x)
// 12
}
}
@half
@hl.javascript
ScalaJS.c.LMain$.prototype.main__V = (function() {
var x = 0;
while ((x < 10)) {
x = ((x + 3) | 0)
};
ScalaJS.m.s_Predef()
.println__O__V(x)
// 12
});
@p
As you can see, both of the above programs do identical things: they'll count the variable @hl.scala{x} from @hl.scala{0}, @hl.scala{3}, @hl.scala{9}, and @hl.scala{12} before finally printing it out. It's just that the first is written in Scala and the second is in Javascript.
@p
Traditionally, Scala has been a language which runs on the JVM. This eliminates it from consideration in many cases, e.g. when you need to build interactive web apps, the browser-client only runs Javascript. Even if your back-end is all written in Scala, you need to fall back to Javascript to run your client-side code, at a great loss in terms of toolability and maintainability. Scala.js lets you to develop web applications with the safety and toolability that comes with a statically typed language:
@ul
@li
Typo-safety due to its compiler which catches many silly errors before the code is run
@li
In-editor support for autocomplete, error-highlighting, refactors, and intelligent navigation
@li
Moderate sized compiled executables, in the 100-400kb range
@li
Source-maps for ease of debugging
@p
The value proposition is that due to the superior language and tooling, writing a web application in Scala.js will result in a codebase that is more flexible and robust than an equivalent application written in Javascript. The hope is that the benefits of using Scala.js will outweigh the additional (non-trivial) messiness of adding a whole new toolchain, as compared to directly writing raw Javascript.
@p
I won't spend time on a detailed discussion on why Scala is good or why Javascript is bad; people's opinions on both sides can be found on the internet. The assumption is, going in, that you either already know and like Scala, or you are familiar with Javascript and are willing to try something new.
@sect{About Javascript}
@p
Javascript is the language supported by web browsers, and is the only language available if you wish to write interactive web applications. As more and more activity moves online, the importance of web apps will only increase over time. Adobe Flash, Java Applets and Silverlight (which have historically allowed browser-client development in other languages) are all but dead: historically they have been the source of security vulnerabilities, none of them are available on the mobile browsers of Android or iOS or Windows8+. That leaves Javascript.
@sect{Javascript-the-language}
@p
Javascript is an OK language to do small-scale development: an animation here, an on-click transition there. There are a number of warts in the language, e.g. its verbosity, and a large amount of surprising behavior, but while your code-base doesn't extend past a few hundred lines of code, you often will not mind or care.
@p
However, Javascript is not an easy language to work in at scale: when your code-base extends to thousands, tens or hundreds of thousands of lines of code. The un-typed nature of the language, which is fine for small applications, becomes an issue when you are mainly working with code that you did not write.
@p
In a large code-base, finding out what methods or properties a variable has is often a long chase through dozens of files to see how it ended up being passed to the current function. Refactorings, which are OK when you can just test the code to see if it works, become dangerous when your code base is large enough that "just test all the code" would take hours. Language-warts which are slightly annoying in small programs become a minefield in large ones: it's only a matter of time before you hit one, often in code you did-not/cannot test, resulting in breakages in production.
@p
Apart from the inherent danger of the language, Javascript has another major problem: the language has left many things unspecified, yet at the same time provides the ability to emulate these things in a variety of ways. This means that rather than having a single way of e.g. defining a class and instantiating an object, there is a decade-long debate between a dozen different and equally-bad, hand-crafted alternatives. Large code-bases use third-party libraries, and most are guaranteed (purely due to how stastistics work) to do these basic things differently from your own code, making understanding these disparate code-bases (e.g. when something goes wrong) very difficult.
@p
To work in Javascript, you need the discipline to limit yourself to the sane subset of the language, avoiding all the pitfalls along the way:
@img(src:="images/javascript-the-good-parts-the-definitive-guide.jpg", margin.auto, display.block)
@p
Even if you manage to do so, what constitutes a pitfall and what constitutes a clever-language-feature changes yearly, making it difficult to maintain cohesiveness over time. This is compounded by the fact that refactoring is difficult, and so removing "unwanted" patterns from a large code-base a difficult (often multi-year) process.
@sect{Javascript-the-platform}
@p
However, even as Javascript-the-language sucks, Javascript-the-platform has some very nice properties that make it a good target for application developers:
@ul
@li
Zero-install distribution: just go to a URL and have the application downloaded and ready to use.
@li
Hyperlinks: being able to link to a particular page or item within a web app is a feature other platforms lack, and makes it much easier to cross-reference between different systems
@li
Sandboxed security: web applications are secure by default. No matter how sketchy the websites you visit, you can be sure that once you close the page, they're gone
@p
These features are all very nice to have, and together have made the web platform the success it is today. When you compare it to traditional applications, you can see the draw:
@ul
@li
Installing traditional desktop applications is usually a several-minute-long process. If something goes wrong in the installation, that often leaves a botched half-install on your computer which makes installing, uninstalling, or running the program impossible without manual surgery to excise the broken files.
@li
Desktop applications generally do not talk to each other at all. While on the web you can easily link a page to someone, trying to get someone to a particular screen in desktop software often involves a chain of screenshots with detailed instructions of which buttons to click at each stage.
@li
Desktop application security is non-existent. Install one rogue application and it can take over your computer, steal your credit card number, use your email for sending spam, and all sorts of other nasty things. Removing these for-good sometimes involves re-installing your entire operating system. Hence people are much more wary about only installing desktop software from people they "trust".
@p
In many ways, mobile App platforms like Android and iOS have closed the gap between "native" and "web" applications. Installing a new App may take 30 seconds, you can often deep-link to certain pages within an App, and Apps have a much tighter security model than desktop software does. Nevertheless, 30 seconds is still much longer than the 0.5 seconds it takes to open a web page, deep-linking in apps is not very prevalent, and the security model still often leaves space for rogue Apps to misbehave and steal data.
@hr
@p
Despite the problems with Javascript (and other tools like HTML an CSS, which have their own problems) the Web platform got a lot of things right, and the Desktop and Mobile platforms have a lot of catching up to do. If only we could improve upon the parts that aren't so great. This is where Scala.js comes in.
@sect{About Scala.js}
@p
With Scala.js, you can cross compile your Scala code to a Javascript executable that can run on all major web browsers. You get all the benefits of the web platform in terms of deployability, security, and hyperlinking, with none of the problems of writing your software in Javascript. Scala.js provides a @sect.ref("The Language", "better language") to do your work in, but also provides some other goodies that have in-so-far never been seen in mainstream web development: @sect.ref("Sharing Code", "shared-code") and @sect.ref("Client-Server Integration", "client-server integration").
@sect{The Language}
@p
At a first approximation, Scala.js provides you a sane language to do development in the web browser. This saves you from an endless stream of Javascript warts like this one:
@hl.javascript
javascript> ["10", "10", "10", "10"].map(parseInt)
[10, NaN, 2, 3] // WTF
@hl.scala
scala> List("10", "10", "10", "10").map(parseInt)
List(10, 10, 10, 10) // Yay!
@p
Not only do you have an expressive language with static types, you also have great tooling with IDEs like IntelliJ and Eclipse, a rich library of standard collections, and many other modern conveniences that we take for granted but are curiously missing when working in the wild west of web development: the browser! You get all of the upside of developing for the web platform.
@p
While not useful for small applications, where most of the logic is gluing together external APIs, this comes in very useful in large applications where a lot of the complexity and room-for-error is entirely internal. With larger apps, you can no longer blame browser vendors for confusing APIs that make your code terrible: these confusing APIs only lurk in the peripherals around a larger, complex application. One thing you learn working in large-ish web client-side code-bases is that the bulk of the confusion and complexity is no-one's fault but your own, as a team.
@p
At this point, all of Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have all announced work on a typed variant of Javascript. These are not academic exercises: @lnk("Dart", "https://www.dartlang.org/")/@lnk("AtScript", "https://docs.google.com/document/d/11YUzC-1d0V1-Q3V0fQ7KSit97HnZoKVygDxpWzEYW0U/edit")/@lnk("Flow", "https://lobste.rs/s/fp9ibi/flow_facebook_s_new_javascript_type_checker")/@lnk("Typescript", "http://www.typescriptlang.org/") are all problems that solve a real need, that these large companies have all faced once they've grown beyond a certain size. Clearly, Javascript isn't cutting it anymore, and the convenience and "native-ness" of the language is more than made up for in the constant barrage of self-inflicted problems. Scala.js takes this idea and runs with it!
@sect{Sharing Code}
@p
Shared code is one of the holy-grails of web development. Traditionally the client-side code and server-side code has been written in separate languages: PHP or Perl or Python or Ruby or Java on the server, with only Javascript on the client. This means that algorithms were often implemented twice, constants copied-&-pasted, or awkward Ajax calls are made in an attempt to centralize the logic in one place (the server). With the advent of Node.js in the last few years, you can finally re-use the same code on the server as you can on the client, but with the cost of having all the previously client-only @sect.ref("Javascript-the-language", "problems with Javascript") now inflicted upon your server code base. Node.js expanded your range-of-options for writing shared client/server logic from "Write everything twice" to "Write everything twice, or write everything in Javascript". More options is always good, but it's not clear which of the two choices is more painful!
@p
Scala.js provides an alternative to this dilemma. With Scala.js, you can utilize the same libraries you use writing your Scala servers when writing your Scala web clients! On one end, you are sharing your templating language with @lnk("Scalatags", "https://github.com/lihaoyi/scalatags") or sharing your serialization logic with @lnk("uPickle", "https://github.com/lihaoyi/upickle"). At the other, you are sharing large, abstract libraries like @lnk("Scalaz", "https://github.com/japgolly/scalaz") or @lnk("Shapeless", "https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/scala-js/shapeless/scala-js/5Sf2up0z3PU/9F9SYB0qHEcJ").
@p
Sharing code means several things:
@ul
@li
Not having to find two libraries to do a particular common task
@li
Not having to re-learn two different ways of doing the exact same thing
@li
Not needing to implement the same algorithms twice, for the times you can't find a good library to do what you want
@li
Not having to debug problems caused by subtle differences in the two implementations
@li
Not having to resort to awkward Ajax-calls or pre-computation to avoid duplicating logic between the client and server
@p
Shared code doesn't just mean sharing pre-made libraries between the client and server. You can easily @sect.ref("Cross Publishing Libraries", "publish your own libraries") that can be used on both Scala-JVM and Scala.js. This means that as a library author, you can at once target two completely different platforms, and (with some work) take advantage of the intricacies of each platform to optimize your library for each one. Take Scalatags as an example: as the first client-server Scala.js-ScalaJVM shared libraries, it enjoys a roughly even split of downloads from people using it on both platforms:
@img(src:="images/Scalatags Downloads.png", width:="100%")
@p
Shared code means that if you, as an application writer, want some logic to be available on both the client and server, you simply @sect.ref("A Client-Server Setup", "put it in a shared/ folder"), and that's the end of the discussion. No architectural patterns to follow, no clever techniques need to be involved. Shared logic, whether that means constants, functions, data structures, all the way to algorithms and entire libraries, can simply be placed in @code{shared/} and be instantly accessible from both your client-side web code and your server.
@p
Shared code has long been the holy-grail of web development. Even now, people speak of shared code as if it were a myth. With Scala.js, shared code is the simple, boring reality. And all this while, just as importantly, you don't need to re-write your large enterprise back-end systems in a language that doesn't scale well beyond 100s of lines of code.
@sect{Client-Server Integration}
@p
There is an endless supply of new platforms which have promised to change-the-way-we-do-web-development-forever. From old-timers like @lnk("Ur-Web", "http://www.impredicative.com/ur/"), to @lnk("GWT", "http://www.gwtproject.org/"), to Asana's @lnk("LunaScript", "https://asana.com/luna"), to more recently things like @lnk("Meteor.js", "https://www.meteor.com/").
@p
One common theme in all these platforms is that their main selling point is their tight, seamless client-server integration, to the point where you can just make method calls across the client-server boundary and the platform/language/compiler figures out what to do.
@p
With Scala.js and Scala-JVM, such conveniences like making method calls across the client-server boundary is the @sect.ref("Integrating Client-Server", "boring reality"). Not only are the calls transparent, they are also statically checked, so any mistake in the route name or the parameters it expects, or the result type it returns to you, will be caught by the compiler long before even manual testing. It becomes @sect.ref("What's Left?", "impossible to make a malformed Ajax call").
@p
There's a lot to be said for automating things using a computer. The entire field of software engineering is basically about automating tasks that were previously done manually: accounting, banking, making travel arrangements, and all that. However, in the world of web-development, there has always been one set of tasks that has traditionally be done manually: the task of ensuring the web-clients are properly synchronized with the web-servers. Communication between the two has always been a manual, tedious, error-prone process, and mistakes often end un-noticed until something breaks in production.
@p
With Scala.js, like the other experimental platforms that have come before us, we attempt to provide a way forward from this manual-tedium.
@hr
@p
In many ways, Scala.js all-at-once provides many of the traditional holy-grails of web development: People have always dreamed about doing web development in a sane, best-of-breed language that compiles to both client and server. Of not having to worry too hard about whether code goes on the client or on the server, and being able to move or share it if necessary. Of having a compiler that will verify and check that your entire system is correct.
@p
Scala.js provides all these things, and much more. If you're interested enough to want to make use of Scala.js, read on!
|
