[valenterry]

The opposite. If I write code on my own just for myself I use the highest level of brevity.

But if I write code for a team, then in some places I will use explicit type annotations and variable names to aid people unfamiliar with the code to understand what's going on.

What you are saying is pretty much "it's easier when everyone only uses nails, because then all I have to bring is a hammer". I think it's good to use screws sometimes.

However, your second point I agree with. OOP vs. FP is a different story. This is about paradigms not about mere syntax. So here, a team must be aligned, which can be a challange when using Scala. It's not a language for corporate drones.

[tastyminerals2]

If it was so simple as just using explicit types :) And this sort of flexibility is exactly why Scala is hard to read. Perl is another example of a great language that allows you a lot of flexibility. In fact, the ability to use just any symbol for a method is the worst thing about Scala. You quickly realize it once you start using Scala libraries some of which basically introduce you to a new Scala based DSL. This quickly becomes a nightmare to work with if several such libraries are used in the project.

[valenterry]

Have you used Scala before? I used both perl and Scala and I had to laugh when I read what you said.

Yeah, Scala makes it possible to write cryptic DSLs. I just don't use libraries that do that, but there are not many such libraries anymore anyways, that was mostly abused in the early days of Scala. Now, 15 years later, that's almost non-existing anymore.

But not having symbolic characters in method names is just horrible. Here is Java code that calculates some datetime:

    LocalDateTime started = LocalDateTime.parse("2018-03-22T19:00:00")
    LocalDateTime finished = start.plus(Duration.ofMinutes(30)).plus(Duration.ofMinutes(15).multipliedBy(4)).plus(Duration.ofSeconds(45)).plus(Duration.ofMinutes(4).multipliedBy(3)).plus(Duration.ofSeconds(30))
 

Here is the exact same calculation, but with Scala's "symbolic" characters:

    val started = LocalDateTime.parse("2018-03-22T19:00:00")
    val finished = start + 30.minutes + 4 * 15.minutes + 45.seconds + 3 * 4.minutes + 30.seconds

I don't need very long to know what I find far more readable ;)

[tastyminerals2]

"I just don't use libraries that do that" -- sounds like you found a solution :)

I agree that "+" looks better than ".plus" but this is a matter of taste (hello Ada).

Yes, I use Scala at work but I can't call myself a seasoned Scala dev, true. On the other hand, just every expert in this or that language will always have a counterargument for you and a solution to the problem. Because he IS an expert! The thing is, not all people are experts or even will be. Most people want a tool that doesn't get in your way, easy to pick up and deliver the results. That is why Python is so popular despite being slow, inefficient and basically a glue for C/C++ libraries. Hell, even for interfacing with C Python loses to Lua. But all these shortcomings didn't matter in the end. Python2 → Python3 didn't kill the language either. I am afraid Scala's error margin is not as big.

[valenterry]

Scala has certainly weaknesses. But being able to use symbols in method names has both pros and cons. You saying that it's the worst thing of Scala is just very exaggerated, at least from my subjective perspective.

And yeah, you are totally right. Most people indeed choose the way of the least resistance and don't want to spend much time learning a language - for good reasons. Scala will never be as popular as Python or Javascript. It is a language for people that are ready to invest more time and dedication to get a higher productivity after some time. Not everyone wants to do that and many people find it too hard. I think the Scala community knows that. :)