[pkolaczk]

Quite the opposite. Scala is a language designed around a very small core of very powerful, and sometimes hard-to-grasp features like implicits or higher-kinded types. It is a different language than Java and was not designed to replace Java or to be a better-Java.

Your C++ to C analogy doesn't hold, because C++ is an (almost) superset of C, while Scala is not a superset of Java at all. Modern C++ compiler can compile most of C code with at most minor, cosmetic changes.

As for the toolchain - I'm working in it daily and so far it has been great. Ok, compiler is not as fast as Java (point taken), but this doesn't matter as long as I can compile my code fast enough. IDE support is stellar compared to most other popular languages, particularly dynamic ones like Python or PHP.

[Phil987]

He wasn't saying it's the same as C++ to C. He was saying it's like C++ in that it has way more features than it should.

[pkolaczk]

Oh, so "Scala / C++ is too complex" again. Many people say that, but most can't name even a single thing that should be removed.

[hota_mazi]

It's not just too complex (we're talking more complex than C++ and Ada) but also poorly designed overall, with so many features that they interact with each other in ways that are pretty much unpredictable.

Odersky himself gave up on scalac and he's writing a compiler and a new language from scratch.

[pkolaczk]

Scala more complex than C++? O'rly?

* C++ language specification: 1374 pages (and still includes plenty of "unspecified behavior" / "undefined behavior")

* Java language specification: 788 pages

* Scala language specification: 191 pages

> Odersky himself gave up on scalac and he's writing a compiler and a new language from scratch.

Odersky created a new language to be able to do research without sacrificing Scala stability, which is already mainstream and should not undergo any more major revolutions. So Dotty is for research / incubating language features, while Scala stays on the stable side of things, letting companies like Twitter or LinkedIn develop without fear that 2.13 will not compile their 2.12 code.

> also poorly designed overall

This is an opinion, not a fact.

> With so many features that they interact with each other in ways that are pretty much unpredictable.

Name three. I'm coding in it for several years, and didn't notice a single one issue. I heard this complaint about Scala being too hard a few times very long time ago (when Scala was at version 2.6, and its tooling was in fact terrible), but it was always from programmers, who had also major problems coding in Java, so I never treated this seriously.