4 ms·

You make some valid points. I still think after removing the points you mentioned, Scala's spec will still be shorter - but I'm too lazy to do that. And reason

You make some valid points. I still think after removing the points you mentioned, Scala's spec will still be shorter - but I'm too lazy to do that. And reasons are for example that the language just has less exceptions. Like the + "operator" which is just a method. And Int just being a datatype - no need to put this in the spec. Or that "int" is not a keyword in Scala - well, I think that is totally a good thing and also comparable, why not? > Also, the size of the language specification has nothing to do with how easy a feature is to grasp Sure, but your original claim wasn't just "it's hard to learn Scala" because with that claim I would agree. > Scala 3 still has ~all the features of Scala 2 Scala 3 has removed a lot of features. In particular powerful features like Scala 2's macros. So what you say is just wrong (the tilde in front of the all really doesn't make it better). > It also has two separate syntaxes, a Java-like and a Python-like syntax, to add even more confusion and even more things to learn. That's a valid point, but if this is your level of complaint, then you must hate Java much more than Scala. It has way more warts and confusions than Scala. I know both languages in and out. > > XML Literals are still supported, but will be dropped in the near future, to be replaced with XML string interpolation[.] Careful here. XML literals are still supported (even though deprecated), but that is not xml support. XML support has been completely removed from the compiler and is now in a library that needs to be imported. This is different from before, where XML was really built into the language. In other words: try to use XML without that library and it will simply not compile.

Kwpolska 4y ago
> Scala 3 has removed a lot of features. In particular powerful features like Scala 2's macros. So what you say is just wrong (the tilde in front of the all really doesn't make it better). Sure, macros were removed, but they were an experimental thing in Scala 2 (and another case of language bloat IMO). If you look at features used in day-to-day programming (in [0] or [1]), the list of removed features is quite short, and many of them are very minor things that can be usually automatically replaced, and some of them were still supported in Scala 3.0 (perhaps with a compatibility flag). [0] https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/guides/migration/incompat-dropped-features.html https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/guides/migration/incompat... [1] https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/reference/dropped-features/index.html https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/reference/dropped-feature...
- valenterry 4y ago
  Cool, now we are from > Scala 3 still has ~all the features of Scala 2 to "Scala 3 has most of the day-to-day (from a language-user's point of view) programming features". I'm fine with that. :)

Kwpolska 4y ago

> Scala 3 has removed a lot of features. In particular powerful features like Scala 2's macros. So what you say is just wrong (the tilde in front of the all really doesn't make it better). Sure, macros were removed, but they were an experimental thing in Scala 2 (and another case of language bloat IMO). If you look at features used in day-to-day programming (in [0] or [1]), the list of removed features is quite short, and many of them are very minor things that can be usually automatically replaced, and some of them were still supported in Scala 3.0 (perhaps with a compatibility flag). [0] https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/guides/migration/incompat-dropped-features.html https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/guides/migration/incompat... [1] https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/reference/dropped-features/index.html https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/reference/dropped-feature...

valenterry 4y ago
Cool, now we are from > Scala 3 still has ~all the features of Scala 2 to "Scala 3 has most of the day-to-day (from a language-user's point of view) programming features". I'm fine with that. :)