> In Scala the blend of OOP and FP can sound overwhelming, but it's actually the healthiest blend of FP + OOP to ever come up in a programming language.
Have you tried OCaml or F#?
Have you tried OCaml or F#?
Not having a separate module and object system is another plus when compared to OCaml.
It unifies OO and FP better than OCaml and F#, because OO implemented in OCaml and F# feels like the designers tried to make a point about how much they dislike OO. What's the first thing OCaml/F# devs tell others about OO in their langauge? To avoid it.
OTOH OCaml, as an ML, inherits an outstanding module story which is really the core of OO anyway. I'd happily say OCaml is a better OO language than Scala for that reason.
With the module being roughly equal, and while objects suck in OCaml, but don't suck in Scala, I'm kind of surprised by your judgment.
Although I rather prefer the functional first approach of the ML language family and actually dislike how typeclasses and HKT are currently supported in Scala.
They look like workarounds based on programming patterns trying to make Scala look like Haskell, with proper support only expected for Dotty, if I understand them correctly.
No trolling, I only dabbled a bit in Scala.
Implicits for typeclasses aren't really a workaround. Implicits parameters are an extremely powerful type-level programming tool. Typeclasses just require slightly more boilerplate than Haskell. And encoding recursion in the type system on things like HLists is rather straightforward and readable using implicits. In contrast, Ocaml and F# don't have the tools to express HLists or much of the type level stuff in Shapeless.