> If you already know F#, then Scala is a much simpler Well, F# does seem to have a lot of "bolted-on" features, but Scala always gives the impression that thin

> If you already know F#, then Scala is a much simpler Well, F# does seem to have a lot of "bolted-on" features, but Scala always gives the impression that things "come out of nowhere", e.g. a simple underscore turns the whole expression into a lambda! It looks neat, but I will need some practice to get used to things like this. But, as I said, this is just a superficial analysis, some thing we can only learn after some practicing. > Not sure what you mean with that. Braces, parenthesis, dots, semicolons, and IIRC you can use the arrow => without anything on its left side. > The method is either defined on the type of the left, or added by an conversion from that type. That's it. Unless it ends with a colon, right? > Method calls with one argument can leave out dot and parentheses That's somewhat simpler than I expected. I thought it was something Perl-like or Ruby-like (where obj.method + 1 is different from obj.method +1). There should be some way to get a reference to a method without calling it, that I still haven't learnt. > If a method has a side effect, you define and call it with parentheses, otherwise you leave them out Not sure I understand this. Is this the preferred coding style or something enforced by the compiler? > I hope that helps a bit! Yes, it helped! Thanks!