
On Scala's future - acangiano
http://antoniocangiano.com/2009/08/07/on-scalas-future/
======
DanielStraight
Every time I've tried to use Scala, I couldn't get through the tutorial
without a version incompatibility. It just gave me the impression that they
don't really have things together. Until I can get all the way through the
tutorial without unexplained error messages, I'm not going to bother too much.

------
donw
My guess is (a). Scala is a really interesting language, and has some serious
(and undeniable) benefits, but the Scala community seems to have the same
permafrost problem that torpedoed Python, as well as a bit of 'technical
excellence over everyday practical value' (e.g., Scala's proliferation of
operators and syntactic magic).

~~~
JulianMorrison
What happens when you don't have operators and sugar? You get ten-times-worse
unreadable mess like anonymous inner subclasses. You get a dirty mix of a+b
and a.add(b). And finally, you get a language that has to be extended with
revisions of the core, rather than with libraries.

Scala's operators are OK, but Haskell's are better yet because of the concept
of a typeclass. You can't abuse + because it comes bundled with -, instances
which support < are guaranteed to support ==, and so on. Operators actually
have meanings that aren't arbitrary.

~~~
blasdel
Beyond that, in Haskell you can make your own infix functions with arbitrary
symbols, arbitrary meaning, and arbitrary precedence when that's what you
want.

