Why does Scala have classes when it already has traits? - class

Question

This may seem like a silly question, so bear with me...
Consider this REPL session:
scala> trait T
defined trait T
scala> val t = new T
<console>:8: error: trait T is abstract; cannot be instantiated
val t = new T
^
scala> val t = new T {}
t: java.lang.Object with T = $anon$1#78db81f3
scala> class C
defined class C
scala> val c = new C
c: C = C#170a6001
We can use a trait just like a class, except that we have to add {} after the new T. In fact, we're essentially mixing T into java.lang.Object, which actually makes a lot of sense to me.
If we have members, again only the {} must be added:
scala> trait T2 { val s = "test" }
defined trait T2
scala> val t2 = new T2
<console>:8: error: trait T2 is abstract; cannot be instantiated
val t2 = new T2
^
scala> val t2 = new T2 {}
t2: java.lang.Object with T2 = $anon$1#6a688d6f
scala> t2.s
res0: java.lang.String = test
scala> class C2 { val s = "test" }
defined class C2
scala> val c2 = new C2
c2: C2 = C2#73ea7821
scala> c2.s
res1: java.lang.String = test
If we have abstract members then the trait declaration is actually shorter by a few characters and, more importantly, more consistent in my eyes (no need to remember to put abstract in front of your declarations):
scala> trait T3 { val s: String }
defined trait T3
scala> val t3 = new T3 { val s = "test" }
t3: java.lang.Object with T3 = $anon$1#1f2f0ce9
scala> abstract class C3 { val s: String }
defined class C3
scala> val c3 = new C3 { val s = "test" }
c3: C3 = $anon$1#207a8313
If you forget that you must define some of the members, both ways give you compile errors:
scala> val badt3 = new T3 {}
<console>:7: error: object creation impossible, since value s in trait T3 of type String is not defined
val badt3 = new T3 {}
scala> class BadC3 { val s: String }
<console>:8: error: class BadC3 needs to be abstract, since value s is not defined
class BadC3 { val s: String }
And if we try to do more complex things then the power of traits naturally becomes further apparent:
scala> val t4 = new T with T2
t4: java.lang.Object with T with T2 = $anon$1#479e0994
scala> val c4 = new C with C2
<console>:9: error: class C2 needs to be a trait to be mixed in
val c4 = new C with C2
So again I ask, why does Scala bother with classes at all when traits are apparently both simpler and more powerful?
I assume the reason is conceptual and actual compatibility with Java, but I wonder whether code compatability could have been maintained behind the scenes. As I understand it, Scala traits just become Java classes behind the scenes, so why couldn't the reverse happen and Scala consider Java classes to essentially be traits?
Related to all this, why not allow dropping the curly brackets when unnecessary? For example:
val t = new T
At that point, as a user, traits would be indistinguishable from current Scala classes, but of course better.

Answer 1

There are several differences between traits and classes:
a trait can not take constructor parameters. This limitation might be lifted at some point, but it's a hard problem. A trait may be inherited multiple times in a hierarchy, and each instantiation may give different values for the constructor parameters
a trait is compiled to a Java interface and an implementation class (carrying the concrete methods). This means it's a bit slower, because all calls go through interfaces, and if they're concrete, they are forwarded to their implementation
a trait with concrete members can't be nicely inherited in Java (it could, but it would look like an interface, therefore concrete members would still need to be implemented in Java).
I don't think the distinction between classes and traits will go away, mostly because of the last two items. But they may become easier to use if the first point is solved. Regarding instantiation without the {}, that's a convenience that could be added, but I personally wouldn't like it: each instantiation creates a new class (an anonymous one), and there should be an indication to the programmer that that's the case.