> I mean, to be fair, your argument was "large enterprises". > Which, means Java. And in that regard you're not wrong since > binary compatibility there is a gi

> I mean, to be fair, your argument was "large enterprises". > Which, means Java. And in that regard you're not wrong since > binary compatibility there is a given. Exactly, and that's what Scala is up against. Java 8 will allow Java 7 compiled libraries to run without changes, and though there's a world of difference between Java 8 and Scala, in practice Java 8 gives developers some new features that they'll find useful and more performant than Scala (parallel collections, no implicit casting/conversions etc.) It's also worth noting that 'backwardly compatible' and 'new features' aren't in conflict with each other. Java has had new features added (invokedynamic at the JVM, try-with-resources and string switch in the language layer) but they've still remained binary compatible. The problem is that Scala's approach to new features is to break binary compatibility between 2.x and 2.x+1 releases.