After modeling Clojure's Card Deck as a simple sequence of maps, the author models Scala's card deck in an overly complex way using a Deck Class with a nested card class, and each card nesting four distinct case classes to represent suit (Yikes!). The author defends the terrible Scala design by writing:

> Sure, you could eschew objects in Scala and mimic Clojure by using generic maps/vectors/lists/sets for all your structured data needs, but that's clearly not how Scala is meant to be used.

Scala isn't "meant to be used" any way. Scala is a lots of things (often times to its detriment) but opinionated is not one. The author even alludes to this early in the post:

> Ten years ago, I would have said that my ideal dream language is one that provides the flexibility to program in any style. I want to be able to choose object-oriented or functional, immutable or mutable, high-level abstractions or low-level speed. With respect to this ideal, Scala clearly wins, supporting more programming styles than Clojure.

Classic fanboyism, as the author purposely created a shitty Scala example. I would advise that someone investigating functional languages on the JVM take this post with a grain of salt.