[airplane]

From what I observed it's close enough to Java that people can easily switch and are willing to. There's also enough brevity with the language to be at ease with it daily (not as much as Scala) where it may be enough that perhaps people might not want to invest time to go all the way to Scala.

[lmm]

One of the things I love about Scala is that you don't have to "go all the way" though - you can start by writing Java-like code using Java libraries, and move on to writing Kotlin-like code as and when you want to, and move on to more advanced features than that as and when you want to.

[incepted]

> One of the things I love about Scala is that you don't have to "go all the way" though

This is true of any language so it doesn't mean much.

Still, we went through the same thing with C++ 20 years ago. Google even used to have (still does?) a style guide saying which features to use and which ones not to use.

Instead of having to use a guide that tells me which features of a language are dangerous, I prefer a language that doesn't require such a guide in the first place.

[lmm]

Unfortunately it's impossible to combine that with seamless Java interoperability, because so many Java features are dangerous (null, exceptions, pervasive mutability, all of the methods on Object, finalizers, low-level thread manipulation) or at least cumbersome (use-site variance and the resulting existential types, control flow constructs built into the language syntax).

I don't think there are any dangerous things you can do in Scala that you can't do in Kotlin. Only safe alternatives that exist in Scala but not in Kotlin.

[pjmlp]

> Google even used to have (still does?) a style guide saying which features to use and which ones not to use.

Which is a good example on how not to write modern C++, given the things they don't allow to use and not loved that much in the C++ community.