Community and Communication going forward


It may be good goal. but it is a very bad goods.
I can’t convince my colleagues to use scala with such words.

is there more technical vision

1 Like

I remember a little while ago (a few months?), some one sent a link to
a video of a talk where the conclusion was pretty much that quote. So
I’m assuming that was then Jon De Goes’ talk, though I couldn’t be
completely sure.

The talk started off going over a series of challenges Scala faces,
including a list of competitors, and ended in the conclusion that
Scala is doomed unless Scala sheds its OO features and becomes purely

I watched the talk and it was not apparent to me that it was
hyperbole. I thought he really means exactly what he said.

It could be that I’m in the minority here, as I’m slightly autistic
and therefore less good in detecting things like hyperbole.

What he said was perfectly in line with some people who used to be
very vocal and never got tired of telling every one that real
idiomatic Scala is essentially functional (“avoid vars”, “mutability
is the new goto”, etc).

I disagree with these people, but they should have the right to voice
their opinions.

I think that’s not off-topic, because that’s exactly what Scala
community is or is not about.


Lurker here. I largely agree with this.

However, I think some of this could be mitigated if Scala’s standard library supplied more of the FP workhorses by default. Currently when contrasted with ScalaZ and Cats (and now ZIO), the Scala standard library “feels” moderately OOP biased, paying lip service to the FP side of Scala. Whether this is “true” or not is a fool’s errand

This perception of the OOP bias in the Scala standard is part of where the “oppositoonal FP ideology” attitudes emerge and manifest in both passive-aggressive undermining of Scala messaging as well as the outright religiously oriented “condemnation and excommunication” behaviors seen by the most billigerant (current and former) Scala FP community members.

Psychology has a rich library of ways to evaluate and mitigate ideologically damaging attitudes and behaviors. Trying to strictly control these psychology conundrums via various communication technology approaches will miss the root cause, and just add participation costs to those who don’t fall into the ideological extremes.


This is easier said than done, e.g. see this thread about adding Traverse to the standard library:


When Martin started creating Scala, Generics had not been delivered to Java or C#. I’m not sure if C# 1.0 even had foreach methods. Some people may snear at foreach, but it was the first thing that got me starting to think functionally, even if I had never heard of Functional Programming. At least as far I’m aware there was nothing with early Scala, that could be remotely interpreted as a promise to provide a platform for pure, inheritance-free, lazy programming on the Jvm.

Over time Martin and his collaborators, have added more and more to Scala to support Functional Programming and ever purer Functional Programming.

We’ve seen higher-kinded types, views, improved for comprehensions, generalised implicit look-up, succinct tuple syntax, lazy values, extended case class functionality, dependant method types, macros, Value types, singleton types and improved views added to the language.

We’re looking forward to intersection / union types, type lambdas, Dependant Function Types, Algebraic Data Types, Type class derivation, inferable by-Name parameters, Opaque Type aliases, Parameter Untupling, Kind Polymorphism and multiversal type equality.

We’ve seen the dropping of Any2StringAdd. All of this supports and will support the creation of of strongly typed, pure functional code and laziness. But from a certain section of the functional Scala community, do we see any gratitude towards Martin and the other lead Scala developers for all of this? No we see continual carping, complaining, bile and spitefulness.

If anyone has a right to complain about Scala its not the Haskellators but those that want to stay close to Java, use imperative code or write in a more loosly typed dynamic style. They’re the ones that have lost procedure syntax, and Any2StringAdd. They’re the ones whose Java code may be incompatible with Scala libraries using multiversal equality or other new features.

What can make scala more popular?

So it seems the debate is turning towards FP vs. OOP, or FP vs. imperative programming, or similar. I find that a curious divide. John De Goes seemed to me, at least on the surface, not to have anything against specific persons or communities, but found Scala great and feared for its survival and future and sought desperate solutions - though I do not know whether he was sincere or if he had ulterior motives and plans and/or other.

My 2 cents on that topic is that I hope that Java, Kotlin and possibly Haskell will serve me well in the future. The Java and Kotlin language developers, organizations and communities has learned a lot and been greatly inspired by Scala on a considerable number of aspects, including in newer and planned versions, though Scala is still, arguably, much (, much) further “ahead” in some regards (similar abstractions and features to case classes as well as pattern matching have been discussed and investigated by Brian Goetz and others reg. future versions of Java). I would imagine that the same kind of inspiration from Scala goes, albeit likely to a smaller degree, for Haskell, for better or worse for Haskell.


Well said @RichType, seconded. If there is any reason for me (privately) to be careful and take time responding on the continuation of the thread that brought me to this forum; its my appreciation of what Martin and his Scala community have given me. All of what you stated 6 days ago.

1 Like

the new Scala Center advisory board minutes include a summary of a discussion about community and moderation; see