[soq_4]

I really hope that you guys aren't planning to pull a Python 3 with the 3.x series. We're using Scala quite heavily in our production systems and the naysayers will have a great "I told you so" moment of we end up sitting on a ton of critical Scala code which no longer compiles in a future version.

[adriaanm]

We've been thinking about this a lot, even though Scala 3 is a couple of years out. Our current thinking is to bring the 2.x series as close to 3.0 as possible, with the remaining breaking changes being compelling enough to switch. Please share your ideas/concerns over at scala-internals!

Part of the solution will be tooling, and the team at EPFL has started prototyping a migration tool that generates patches to turn a well-typed Scala 2 program into the equivalent one on Scala 3. I believe our type system and the fact that we're a compiled language will make a big difference compared to Python.

[virtualwhys]

Wow, this is the first time I've heard that Scala 3 is actually in the works (vs. Dotty as research that may incrementally find its way into Scala 2).

Naturally, tradeoffs will be made, are you guys at a point yet where you can reveal what we're going to _lose_ in terms of functionality and flexability?

I know the core Scalaz developers had a bit of an uproar on Twitter when Dotty was first revealed (due to the simplified/less powerful type system in Dotty that may make some scalaz magic very difficult to pull off).

Otherwise, improved tooling, build times, Scala 2 sans les warts, etc. will be a boon for the language.

So, Scala 3.0-M1 in 2016? Give us the inside word ;-)

[caoilte]

See also good discussion in ScalaWags #13

http://www.scalawags.tv/

[platz]

Is Scala 3 going to bring in the knowledge from dotty to simplify some of the n x n typing combinations?

[tormeh]

I kind of hope the Scala guys do that, actually. There is too many ways to do certain things. "list.map(_+2)" is legal while "list.map((_+2)+3)" is not. Instead, you need to use an anonymous function like this: "list.map(x => (x+2)+3)". Why is the _-style even legal if it's so inflexible? Why not force functions all the time? Why have two ways to do the same simple thing?

[lmm]

The _ style is legal because it's really useful. Most of the time you're mapping with small functions, and the extra few characters really add up - more than enough to be worth the extra learning.

[tormeh]

It would also be nice if "<-" were replaced with "in". It would just be more helpful and easier to remember. Special signs should be avoided at every opportunity