> Scala's complexity is a serious problem. I once overheard a conversation between two people (one of them family) who implemented a 'binding' for a distributed

> Scala's complexity is a serious problem. I once overheard a conversation between two people (one of them family) who implemented a 'binding' for a distributed key-value store in Scala. One complained that he couldn't even understand the other person's code. The difference: one library treated Scala as a Java with classes, while the other was written in a very functional style using Scalaz. I guess that's a predictable consequence of the design goal of "scalable language". Scalable to the point that people should be able to mold the language in ways that the language designers hadn't foreseen (though in this case the two styles are the two styles that the language was designed to accommodate from the get-go). Maybe people should treat it as a language with many dialects which has the benefit of having a unified ecosystem, instead of having one ecosystem for every dialect.