> There should be only one way to express a given language operation This is not possible in general, because concepts rarely coincide cleanly with syntax. For

> There should be only one way to express a given language operation This is not possible in general, because concepts rarely coincide cleanly with syntax. For example, you can't have both currying and closures if you insist on this. Most of the "syntactic diabetes" examples in the talk are of this kind: They are actually separate, general concepts that happen to overlap. And some don't even overlap, but the author does not seem to fully understand the language. For example, that you can write both f(x) and f{x} is simply because f{x} is essentially the same as f({x}) and the parser allows you to drop the parentheses if they directly surround braces. But `{x}` and `x` are not the same: the first is a scoped block, the latter is a variable. You cannot use a variable to express a scoped block and you cannot use a scoped block to express a variable. There IS unnecessary conceptual overlap in Scala, but you can find that elsewhere: For example, there's quite a bit of conceptual overlap between view bounds and type classes. But it's difficult to blame the language for it: much of this conceptual overlap exists to make the Java interoperability story less painful (of course, you could argue that Scala shouldn't try so hard to be interoperable with Java at the cost of language simplicity, but there are tradeoffs either way).