3 ms·

> but you don't have out of the box retro-compatibility so that pretty much kills it right there. I don't know if that's necessarily a foregone conclusion. Sca

> but you don't have out of the box retro-compatibility so that pretty much kills it right there. I don't know if that's necessarily a foregone conclusion. Scala releases aren't always/usually backwards-compatible, and you'd be hard-pressed to find people still using much older versions.

GuiA 13y ago
I'm not too familiar with Scala; but isn't its life at a different stage than Python's?
TylerE 13y ago
Scala releases are usually not BINARY backwards compatible. Very different from SOURCE backwards compatible.
- wyuenho 13y ago
  Scala also was often not source compatible during 2.7 -> 2.8 because of the huge changes in the standard library.
  - eropple 13y ago
    I'm pretty sure they'll never be doing that again though due to the mess it caused.
ars_technician 13y ago
That's probably related to the user base of scale being orders of magnitude smaller. The network externalities of a large language user base give it incredible inertia that makes it very difficult to change.
zbuc 13y ago
Go has broken backwards compatibility in the core libraries a few times over its short life.