I've gotten to the point where I won't write new JVM-based code in Java anymore. I think many companies that have tried and discarded Scala used too much of it. It has a lot of advanced features, and I'm not particularly good at using most of them (and some of them I probably don't even know exist).
If people start off thinking of Scala as simply a "better Java", and only move to use its easier-to-understand features, I think it'd be a lot easier to hire people to work on Scala codebases and/or train people in the language.
You mention the key points - in order to use it successfully, you have to agree to use a common, safe subset of the language (e.g. no implicits), similar to C++. You then have to make sure everyone adheres to this, if possible by using automated tools. As a startup, you often don't have the luxury to be able to invest in that kind of infrastructure. You have to train people to use the language correctly, which is a huge time sink. Onboarding still is a huge problem.
Backwards compatibility is another big factor that has bitten people once too often. Compiler bugs, slow compile times, bad community attitude come on top of this.
>> If people start off thinking of Scala as simply a "better Java", and only move to use its easier-to-understand features, I think it'd be a lot easier to hire people to work on Scala codebases and/or train people in the language.
Yes absolutely, and I agree it can be used effectively in that case. But the language attracts people that like to think of themselves as wizards that want to master the advanced stuff, too. After all, the whole thing started basically a vehicle for Martin Odersky's papers, implementing any paradigm known to mankind.
Considering all those downsides - is Scala still worth the tradeoff? I do understand the appeal, but there are so many languages out there right now. You need a stable and reliable platform to base your business on, and after hearing - for several years - people moving away from it because it is lacking in that regard seem like something a responsible CTO should not ignore.
This is the reason language wars are looked down upon on HN - someones going to feel offended. Its pointless. But be reminded that ad hominem is not welcome here either. You are welcome to add to the discussion, in case you are knowledgeable in the subject. You have not done much to factually counter any arguments brought up so far, and in case your goal is to persuade anyone of your contrary position, you have done that goal a disservice.
This is not about being "offended". This is me being bored to death by the umpteenth dude – you – thinking that repeating random stuff written on the internet adds anything to the debate.
It has made people shake their heads 5 years ago, and it hasn't changed since then.
There is no need for persuasion. Those who are motivated enough try the language can discard non-sense on their own, and those who keep spewing the same old and tired stuff are not the people I want to deal with anyway.
5 years ago, Paul Phillips was still a core contributor to Scala. Anyone seriously considering Scala should listen to his talk, titled “We’re doing it all wrong”, and take a look at Policy, his fork of the Scala compiler.
If people start off thinking of Scala as simply a "better Java", and only move to use its easier-to-understand features, I think it'd be a lot easier to hire people to work on Scala codebases and/or train people in the language.