> Scala is not C++.
That was not the point. The comparison is that Scala is to Java what C++ is to C.
Powerful and flexible but with a lot of baggage that ends up making it impractical.
That was not the point. The comparison is that Scala is to Java what C++ is to C.
Powerful and flexible but with a lot of baggage that ends up making it impractical.
If making analogies, a much closer analogy would be to say Scala is to Java what D or Rust is to C++.
As of lots of baggage - can you elaborate? Only null comes to my mind and it is never an issue - it was left because Scala is practical. Sure, there are some limitations imposed by the target platform like lack of TCO, lack of efficient suport for tuples/value-types, or RTTI for generics being not powerful enough, but Java-the-language has nothing to do with it. The same limitations apply to Kotlin and Ceylon.
Which is pure opinion/speculation.