[taeric]

This list would be a ton more useful if there were some metrics or indications for which libraries were included and why. Just as good, which were purposefully not included. And again, why.

This is pretty much the reason folks go with full stack frameworks fairly often. Trying to determine which of the testing modules to pair with which authentication module and which ... is annoying.

[zak_mc_kracken]

Agreed, it's pretty much the opposite of "curated" as it stands, especially since it's hard to believe the creators of the list studied carefully the sources of all these frameworks in order to determine their awesomeness.

[davidw]

I eagerly await the day when the 'curated' buzzword is no longer with us.

[teh_klev]

And "awesome".

[lmm]

A number of projects on the list (e.g. Blueeyes and Jerkson) are not even maintained any more.

[lauriswtf]

The list is open source and community driven. It means that everyone can improve it and suggest edits. There has already been 19 pull requests with additions and deletions.

Currently the list is just a work in progress, but I am certain that after several iterations of pull requests it will be up to date and useful.

[taeric]

That just brings the entire "curated" aspect into question. I mean, sure it was curated. By the internet.

At the least, common metrics that can be applied to various offerings would be neat. Possibly a qualifier such that you can't add an item unless it meets a threshold on a few criteria.

[zak_mc_kracken]

And yet, the list still contains quite a few projects that are abandoned and zero annotations of why each project is listed there.

If you're going to claim this list is "curated" and the projects listed there are "awesome Scala", the least you can do is explain the criteria.

[the_af]

It would be useful to clarify what the requirements are for the "curated" list. Also, why each framework is recommended. Otherwise, it's just a list of stuff.