On side note: Lambdas and full generics were considered in first drafts of Oak (later Java). C++ did not have lambdas those days. They were dropped from Java be

On side note: Lambdas and full generics were considered in first drafts of Oak (later Java). C++ did not have lambdas those days. They were dropped from Java because of project deadline pressure and no time to do them right, not some ideology. > It's easy to churn out a lot of Scala code, but hard to read someone else's or debug a Scala program I see this argument a lot in Internet forum discussions, but I've never met anyone who actually had problem reading production level Scala code more than problem reading Java code. Sure, people love to bring on Scalaz and other extreme type-level coded Haskell-like libraries where things can get hairy, because they're solving a complex problem. These people fail to show Java-equivalent of such complex Scala code, so a conclusion that Scala was complex is invalid. However, when comparing things solving similar problems for which we have a Java project and a corresponding similar Scala project, let's say Apache Spark and Apache Hadoop, Spark's code wins in readability hands down.