I'm not quite seasoned, but I recognize that this discussion regularly gets muddied because it conflates implicit parameters and implicit conversions. Implicit

I'm not quite seasoned, but I recognize that this discussion regularly gets muddied because it conflates implicit parameters and implicit conversions. Implicit parameters are everywhere, and they're relatively simple to understand once you get past the mental block that your variables might not actually be declared in the file of code you are viewing. Your mental model just has to include what that file imports, and then you can pretty much understand what implicit parameters are doing. Implicit parameters are useful for a basic form of dependency injection, and they're one of the basic prerequisites for when you are using actors or futures. Implicit conversions are something else - I wouldn't use them just to be clever. But once you get into things like typeclasses (which are easier to understand in Haskell for some reason), implicits become important. So if you have reason to use typeclasses (and there are very good reasons to use them), then implicits are valuable. If your programming doesn't need much abstraction, then you don't really need those kinds of tools though.