I'm not sure the article asserted that Scala was "not better" than Java. It was asserting that Scala is not "a better Java"; that is that the design philosophie

I'm not sure the article asserted that Scala was "not better" than Java. It was asserting that Scala is not "a better Java"; that is that the design philosophies between the two languages are such that it's not right to treat Scala as an evolutionary "next step" from Java, as some have. I think there's some truth to that point of view.