Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
On the surface Groovy and Scala look pretty similar, aside from Scala being statically typed, and Groovy dynamic.
What are the other key differences, and advantages each have over the other?
How similar are they really?
Is there competition between the two?
If so, who do you think will win in the long run?
They're both object oriented languages for the JVM that have lambdas and closures and interoperate with Java. Other than that, they're extremely different.
Groovy is a "dynamic" language in not only the sense that it is dynamically typed but that it supports dynamic meta-programming.
Scala is a "static" language in that it is statically typed and has virtually no dynamic meta-programming beyond the awkward stuff you can do in Java. Note, Scala's static type system is substantially more uniform and sophisticated than Java's.
Groovy is syntactically influenced by Java but semantically influenced more by languages like Ruby.
Scala is syntactically influenced by both Ruby and Java. It is semantically influenced more by Java, SML, Haskell, and a very obscure OO language called gBeta.
Groovy has "accidental" multiple dispatch due to the way it handles Java overloading.
Scala is single dispatch only, but has SML inspired pattern matching to deal with some of the same kinds of problems that multiple dispatch is meant to handle. However, where multiple dispatch can only dispatch on runtime type, Scala's pattern matching can dispatch on runtime types, values, or both. Pattern matching also includes syntactically pleasant variable binding. It's hard to overstress how pleasant this single feature alone makes programming in Scala.
Both Scala and Groovy support a form of multiple inheritance with mixins (though Scala calls them traits).
Scala supports both partial function application and currying at the language level, Groovy has an awkward "curry" method for doing partial function application.
Scala does direct tail recursion optimization. I don't believe Groovy does. That's important in functional programming but less important in imperative programming.
Both Scala and Groovy are eagerly evaluated by default. However, Scala supports call-by-name parameters. Groovy does not - call-by-name must be emulated with closures.
Scala has "for comprehensions", a generalization of list comprehensions found in other languages (technically they're monad comprehensions plus a bit - somewhere between Haskell's do and C#'s LINQ).
Scala has no concept of "static" fields, inner classes, methods, etc - it uses singleton objects instead. Groovy uses the static concept.
Scala does not have built in selection of arithmetic operators in quite the way that Groovy does. In Scala you can name methods very flexibly.
Groovy has the elvis operator for dealing with null. Scala programmers prefer to use Option types to using null, but it's easy to write an elvis operator in Scala if you want to.
Finally, there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are benchmarks. The computer language benchmarks game ranks Scala as being between substantially faster than Groovy (ranging from twice to 93 times as fast) while retaining roughly the same source size. benchmarks.
I'm sure there are many, many differences that I haven't covered. But hopefully this gives you a gist.
Is there a competition between them? Yes, of course, but not as much as you might think. Groovy's real competition is JRuby and Jython.
Who's going to win? My crystal ball is as cracked as anybody else's.
scala is meant to be an oo/functional hybrid language and is very well planned and designed. groovy is more like a set of enhancements that many people would love to use in java.
i took a closer look at both, so i can tell :)
neither of them is better or worse than the other. groovy is very good at meta-programming, scala is very good at everything that does not need meta-programming, so...i tend to use both.
Scala has Actors, which make concurrency much easier to implement. And Traits which give true, typesafe multiple inheritance.
You've hit the nail on the head with the static and dynamic typing. Both are part of the new generation of dynamic languages, with closures, lambda expressions, and so on. There are a handful of syntactic differences between the two as well, but functionally, I don't see a huge difference between Groovy and Scala.
Scala implements Lists a bit differently; in Groovy, pretty much everything is an instance of java.util.List, whereas Scala uses both Lists and primitive arrays. Groovy has (I think) better string interpolation.
Scala is faster, it seems, but the Groovy folks are really pushing performance for the 2.0 release. 1.6 gave a huge leap in speed over the 1.5 series.
I don't think that either language will really 'win', as they target two different classes of problems. Scala is a high-performance language that is very Java-like without having quite the same level of boilerplate as Java. Groovy is for rapid prototyping and development, where speed is less important than the time it takes for programmers to implement the code.
Scala has a much steeper learning curve than Groovy. Scala has much more support for functional programming with its pattern matching and tail based recursion, meaning more tools for pure FP.
Scala also has dynamica compilation and I have done it using twitter eval lib (https://github.com/twitter/util ). I kept scala code in a flat file(without any extension) and using eval created scala class at run time.
I would say scala is meta programming and has feature of dynamic complication
Related
I've heard people claim that:
Scala's type system is amazing (existential types, variant, co-variant)
Because of the power of macros, everything is a library in Clojure: (pattern matching, logic programming, non-determinism, ..)
Question:
If both assertions are true, why is Scala's type system not a library in Clojure? Is it because:
types are one of these things that do not work well as a library? [i.e. the changes would somehow have to threaded through every existing clojure library, including clojure.core?]
is Scala's notion of types fundamentally incompatible with clojure protocol / records?
... ?
It's an interesting question.
You are certainly right about Scala having an amazing type system, and about Clojure being phenomenal for meta-programming and extension of the language (although that is about more than just macros....).
A few reasons I can think of:
Clojure is a dynamically typed language while Scala is a statically typed language. Having powerful type inference isn't so much use in a language where you can assume relatively little about the types of your inputs.
Clojure already has a very interesting project to add typing as a library (Typed Clojure) which looks very promising - however it's very different in approach to Scala as it is designed for a dynamic language from the start (inspired more by Typed Racket, I believe).
Clojure philosophy actually discourages certain OOP concepts (particularly implementation inheritance, mutable objects, and data encapsulation). A type system that supports these things (as Scala does) wouldn't be a good fit for Clojure idioms - at best they would be ignored, but they could easily encourage a style of development that would cause people to run into severe problems later.
Clojure already provides tools that solve many of the problems you would typically solve with types in other languages - e.g. the use of protocols for polymorphism.
There's a strong focus in the Clojure community on simplicity (in the sense of the excellent video "Simple Made Easy" - see particularly the slide at 39:30). While Scala's type system is certainly amazing, I think it's a stretch to describe it as "Simple"
Putting in a Scala-style type system would probably require a complete rewrite of the Clojure compiler and make it substantially more complex. Nobody seems to have signed up so far to take on that particular challenge... and there's a risk that even if someone were willing and able to do this then the changes could be rejected for the various cultural / technical reasons covered above.
In the absence of a major change to Clojure itself (which I think would be unlikely) then one interesting possibility would be to create a DSL within Clojure that provided Scala-style type inference for a specific domain and compiled this DSL direct to optimised Java bytecode. I could see that being a useful approach for specific problem domains (large scale numerical data crunching with big matrices, for example).
To simply answer your question "... why is Scala's type system not a library in Clojure?":
Because the type system is part of the scala compiler and not of the scala library. The whole power of scalas type system only exists at compile time. The JVM has no support for things like that, because of type erasure and also, because it would simply slow down execution. And also there is no need for it. If you have a statically typed language, you don't need type information at runtime, unless you want to do dirty stuff.
edit:
#mikera the jvm is sure capable of running the scala compiler, I did not say anything like that. I just said, that the jvm has no support for type systems like that. It does not even support generics. At runtime all these types are gone. The compiler checks for the correctness of a program and removes all the higher kinded types / generics.
example:
val xs: List[Int] = List(1,2,3,4)
val x1: Int = xs.head
will at runtime look like this:
val xs: List = List.apply(1,2,3,4)
val x1: Int = xs.head.asInstanceOf[Int]
But it doesn't matter, because the compiler checked it before. You can only get in trouble here, when you use reflection, because you could put any value in the list and it would break at runtime exactly where the value is casted to Int.
And this is one of the reasons, why the scala type system is not part of the scala library, but built into the compiler.
And also the question of the OP was "... why is Scala's type system not a library in Clojure?" and not "Is it possible to create a type system such as scalas for clojure?" and I perfectly answered that question.
I'm wondering why Scala does not have an IO Monad like Haskell.
So, in Scala the return type of method readLine is String whereas in Haskell the comparable function getLine has the return type IO String.
There is a similar question about this topic, but its answer it not satisfying:
Using IO is certainly not the dominant style in scala.
Can someone explain this a bit further? What was the design decision for not including IO Monads to Scala?
Because Scala is not pure (and has no means to enforce that a function is pure, like D has) and allows side effects. It interoperates closely with Java (e.g. reuses big parts of the Java libraries). Scala is not lazy, so there is no problem regarding execution order like in Haskell (e.g. no need for >> or seq). Under these circumstances introducing the IO Monad would make life harder without gaining much.
But if you really have applications where the IO monad has significant advantages, nothing stops you from writing your own implementation or to use scalaz. See e.g. http://apocalisp.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/towards-an-effect-system-in-scala-part-2-io-monad/
[Edit]
Why wasn't it done as a lazy and pure language?
This would have been perfectly possible (e.g. look at Frege, a JVM language very similar to Haskell). Of course this would make the Java interoperability more complicate, but I don't think this is the main reason. I think a lazy and pure language is a totally cool thing, but simply too alien to most Java programmers, which are the target audience of Scala. Scala was designed to cooperate with Java's object model (which is the exact opposite of pure and lazy), allowing functional and mixed functional-OO programming, but not enforcing it (which would have chased away almost all Java programmers). In fact there is no point in having yet another completely functional language: There is Haskell, Erlang, F# (and other MLs) and Clojure (and other Schemes / Lisps), which are all very sophisticated, stable and successful, and won't be easily replaced by a newcomer.
Many of the available resources for learning Scala assume some background in Java. This can prove challenging for someone who is trying to learn Scala with no Java background.
What are some Java-isms a new Scala developer should know about as they learn the language?
For example, it's useful to know what a CLASSPATH is, what the java command line options are, etc...
That's a really great question! I've never thought about people learning Java just so they have it easier to learn Scala...
Apart from all the basics like for loops and such, learning Java Generics can be really helpful. The Scala equivalent is much more potent (and much harder to understand) than Java Generics. You might want to try to figure out where the limits of Java Generics are, and then in which cases Scala's type constructors can be used to overcome those limitations. At the more basic level, it is important to know why Generics are necessary, and how Java is a strongly typed language.
Java allows you to have multiple constructors for one class. This knowledge will be of no use when you learn Scala, because Scala has another way that allows you to offer several methods to create instances of a class. So, you'd rather not have a deep look into this Java concept.
Here are some concepts that differ very strongly between Java and Scala. So, if you learn the Java concepts and then later on want to learn the equivalent in Scala, you should be aware that the Scala equivalent differs so greatly from the Java version that a typical Java developer will have some difficulty to adapt to the Scala way of thinking. Still, it usually helps to first get used to the Java way, because it is usually simpler and easier to learn. I personally prefer to think of Java as the introductory course, and Scala is the pro version.
Java mutable collection concept vs. Scala mutable/immutable differentiation
static methods (Java) vs. singleton objects (Scala)
for loops
Java return statement vs. Scala functional style ("every expression returns a value")
Java's use of null for "no value" vs. Scala's more explicit Option type
imports
Java's switch vs. Scala's match
And here is a list of stuff that you will probably use from the Java standard library, even if you develop in Scala:
IO
GUI (Scala has a wrapper for Swing, but hey)
URLs, URIs, files
date
timers
And finally, some of Scala's features that have no direct equivalent in Java or the Java standard library:
operator overloading
implicits and implicit conversions
multiple argument lists / currying
anonymous functions / functions as values
actors
streams
Scala pattern matching (which rocks)
traits
type inference
for comprehensions
awesome collection operations like fold or map
Of course, all the lists are incomplete. That's just my view on what is important. I hope it helps.
And, by the way: You should definitely know about the class path and other JVM basics.
The standard library, above all else, because that's what Scala has most in common with Java.
You should also get a basic idea of Java's syntax, because a lot of books end up comparing something in Scala to something in Java. But other than the platform and some of the library, they're totally distinctive languages.
There are a few trivial conventions passed from one to the other (like command line options), but as you read books and tutorials on Scala you should pick those up as you go regardless of previous Java experience.
The serie "Scala for Java Refugees" can gives some indications on typical Java topics you are supposed to know and how they translate into Scala.
For instance, the very basic main() Java function which translate into the Application trait, once considered harmful, and now improved (for Scala 2.9 anyway).
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
What are the most commonly held misconceptions about the Scala language, and what counter-examples exist to these?
UPDATE
I was thinking more about various claims I've seen, such as "Scala is dynamically typed" and "Scala is a scripting language".
I accept that "Scala is [Simple/Complex]" might be considered a myth, but it's also a viewpoint that's very dependent on context. My personal belief is that it's the very same features that can make Scala appear either simple or complex depending oh who's using them. Ultimately, the language just offers abstractions, and it's the way that these are used that shapes perceptions.
Not only that, but it has a certain tendency to inflame arguments, and I've not yet seen anyone change a strongly-held viewpoint on the topic...
Myth: That Scala’s “Option” and Haskell’s “Maybe” types won’t save you from null. :-)
Debunked: Why Scala's "Option" and Haskell's "Maybe" types will save you from null by James Iry.
Myth: Scala supports operator overloading.
Actually, Scala just has very flexible method naming rules and infix syntax for method invocation, with special rules for determining method precedence when the infix syntax is used with 'operators'. This subtle distinction has critical implications for the utility and potential for abuse of this language feature compared to true operator overloading (a la C++), as explained more thoroughly in James Iry's answer to this question.
Myth: methods and functions are the same thing.
In fact, a function is a value (an instance of one of the FunctionN classes), while a method is not. Jim McBeath explains the differences in greater detail. The most important practical distinctions are:
Only methods can have type parameters
Only methods can take implicit arguments
Only methods can have named and default parameters
When referring to a method, an underscore is often necessary to distinguish method invocation from partial function application (e.g. str.length evaluates to a number, while str.length _ evaluates to a zero-argument function).
I disagree with the argument that Scala is hard because you can use very advanced features to do hard stuff with it. The scalability of Scala means that you can write DSL abstractions and high-level APIs in Scala itself that otherwise would need a language extension. So to be fair you need to compare Scala libraries to other languages compilers. People don't say that C# is hard because (I assume, don't have first hand knowledge on this) the C# compiler is pretty impenetrable. For Scala it's all out in the open. But we need to get to a point where we make clear that most people don't need to write code on this level, nor should they do it.
I think a common misconception amongst many scala developers, those at EPFL (and yourself, Kevin) is that "scala is a simple language". The argument usually goes something like this:
scala has few keywords
scala reuses the same few constructs (e.g. PartialFunction syntax is used as the body of a catch block)
scala has a few simple rules which allow you to create library code (which may appear as if the language has special keywords/constructs). I'm thinking here of implicits; methods containing colons; allowed identifier symbols; the equivalence of X(a, b) and a X b with extractors. And so on
scala's declaration-site variance means that the type system just gets out of your way. No more wildcards and ? super T
My personal opinion is that this argument is completely and utterly bogus. Scala's type system taken together with implicits allows one to write frankly impenetrable code for the average developer. Any suggestion otherwise is just preposterous, regardless of what the above "metrics" might lead you to think. (Note here that those who I've seen scoffing at the non-complexity of Java on Twitter and elsewhere happen to be uber-clever types who, it sometimes seems, had a grasp of monads, functors and arrows before they were out of short pants).
The obvious arguments against this are (of course):
you don't have to write code like this
you don't have to pander to the average developer
Of these, it seems to me that only #2 is valid. Whether or not you write code quite as complex as scalaz, I think it's just silly to use the language (and continue to use it) with no real understanding of the type system. How else can one get the best out of the language?
There is a myth that Scala is difficult because Scala is a complex language.
This is false--by a variety of metrics, Scala is no more complex than Java. (Size of grammar, lines of code or number of classes or number of methods in the standard API, etc..)
But it is undeniably the case that Scala code can be ferociously difficult to understand. How can this be, if Scala is not a complex language?
The answer is that Scala is a powerful language. Unlike Java, which has many special constructs (like enums) that accomplish one particular thing--and requires you to learn specialized syntax that applies just to that one thing, Scala has a variety of very general constructs. By mixing and matching these constructs, one can express very complex ideas with very little code. And, unsurprisingly, if someone comes along who has not had the same complex idea and tries to figure out what you're doing with this very compact code, they may find it daunting--more daunting, even, than if they saw a couple of pages of code to do the same thing, since then at least they'd realize how much conceptual stuff there was to understand!
There is also an issue of whether things are more complex than they really need to be. For example, some of the type gymnastics present in the collections library make the collections a joy to use but perplexing to implement or extend. The goals here are not particularly complicated (e.g. subclasses should return their own types), but the methods required (higher-kinded types, implicit builders, etc.) are complex. (So complex, in fact, that Java just gives up and doesn't try, rather than doing it "properly" as in Scala. Also, in principle, there is hope that this will improve in the future, since the method can evolve to more closely match the goal.) In other cases, the goals are complex; list.filter(_<5).sorted.grouped(10).flatMap(_.tail.headOption) is a bit of a mess, but if you really want to take all numbers less than 5, and then take every 2nd number out of 10 in the remaining list, well, that's just a somewhat complicated idea, and the code pretty much says what it does if you know the basic collections operations.
Summary: Scala is not complex, but it allows you to compactly express complex ideas. Compact expression of complex ideas can be daunting.
There is a myth that Scala is non-deployable, whereas a wide range of third-party Java libraries can be deployed without a second thought.
To the extent that this myth exists, I suspect it exists among people who are not accustomed to separating a virtual machine and API from a language and compiler. If java == javac == Java API in your mind, you might get a little nervous if someone suggests using scalac instead of javac, because you see how nicely your JVM runs.
Scala ends up as JVM bytecode, plus its own custom library. There's no reason to be any more worried about deploying Scala on a small scale or as part of some other large project as there is in deploying any other library that may or may not stay compatible with whichever JVM you prefer. Granted, the Scala development team is not backed by quite as much force as the Google collections, or Apache Commons, but its got at least as much weight behind it as things like the Java Advanced Imaging project.
Myth:
def foo() = "something"
and
def bar = "something"
is the same.
It is not; you can call foo(), but bar() tries to call the apply method of StringLike with no arguments (results in an error).
Some common misconceptions related to Actors library:
Actors handle incoming messages in a parallel, in multiple threads / against a thread pool (in fact, handling messages in multiple threads is contrary to the actors concept and may lead to racing conditions - all messages are sequentially handled in one thread (thread-based actors use one thread both for mailbox processing and execution; event-based actors may share one VM thread for execution, using multi-threaded executor to schedule mailbox processing))
Uncaught exceptions don't change actor's behavior/state (in fact, all uncaught exceptions terminate the actor)
Myth: You can replace a fold with a reduce when computing something like a sum from zero.
This is a common mistake/misconception among new users of Scala, particularly those without prior functional programming experience. The following expressions are not equivalent:
seq.foldLeft(0)(_+_)
seq.reduceLeft(_+_)
The two expressions differ in how they handle the empty sequence: the fold produces a valid result (0), while the reduce throws an exception.
Myth: Pattern matching doesn't fit well with the OO paradigm.
Debunked here by Martin Odersky himself. (Also see this paper - Matching Objects with Patterns - by Odersky et al.)
Myth: this.type refers to the same type represented by this.getClass.
As an example of this misconception, one might assume that in the following code the type of v.me is B:
trait A { val me: this.type = this }
class B extends A
val v = new B
In reality, this.type refers to the type whose only instance is this. In general, x.type is the singleton type whose only instance is x. So in the example above, the type of v.me is v.type. The following session demonstrates the principle:
scala> val s = "a string"
s: java.lang.String = a string
scala> var v: s.type = s
v: s.type = a string
scala> v = "another string"
<console>:7: error: type mismatch;
found : java.lang.String("another string")
required: s.type
v = "another string"
Scala has type inference and refinement types (structural types), whereas Java does not.
The myth is busted by James Iry.
Myth: that Scala is highly scalable, without qualifying what forms of scalability.
Scala may indeed be highly scalable in terms of the ability to express higher-level denotational semantics, and this makes it a very good language for experimentation and even for scaling production at the project-level scale of top-down coordinated compositionality.
However, every referentially opaque language (i.e. allows mutable data structures), is imperative (and not declarative) and will not scale to WAN bottom-up, uncoordinated compositionality and security. In other words, imperative languages are compositional (and security) spaghetti w.r.t. uncoordinated development of modules. I realize such uncoordinated development is perhaps currently considered by most to be a "pipe dream" and thus perhaps not a high priority. And this is not to disparage the benefit to compositionality (i.e. eliminating corner cases) that higher-level semantic unification can provide, e.g. a category theory model for standard library.
There will possibly be significant cognitive dissonance for many readers, especially since there are popular misconceptions about imperative vs. declarative (i.e. mutable vs. immutable), (and eager vs. lazy,) e.g. the monadic semantic is never inherently imperative yet there is a lie that it is. Yes in Haskell the IO monad is imperative, but it being imperative has nothing to with it being a monad.
I explained this in more detail in the "Copute Tutorial" and "Purity" sections, which is either at the home page or temporarily at this link.
My point is I am very grateful Scala exists, but I want to clarify what Scala scales and what is does not. I need Scala for what it does well, i.e. for me it is the ideal platform to prototype a new declarative language, but Scala itself is not exclusively declarative and afaik referential transparency can't be enforced by the Scala compiler, other than remembering to use val everywhere.
I think my point applies to the complexity debate about Scala. I have found (so far and mostly conceptually, since so far limited in actual experience with my new language) that removing mutability and loops, while retaining diamond multiple inheritance subtyping (which Haskell doesn't have), radically simplifies the language. For example, the Unit fiction disappears, and afaics, a slew of other issues and constructs become unnecessary, e.g. non-category theory standard library, for comprehensions, etc..
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
It is my opinion that every language was created for a specific purpose. What was Scala created for and what problems does it best solve?
One of the things mentioned in talks by Martin Odersky on Scala is it being a language which scales well to tackle various problems. He wasn't talking about scaling in the sense of performance but in the sense that the language itself can seem to be expanded via libraries. So that:
val lock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock
lock withReadLock {
//do stuff
}
Looks like there is some special syntactic sugar for dealing with j.u.c locks. But this is not the case, it's just using the scala language in such a way as it appears to be. The code is more readable, isn't it?
In particular the various parsing rules of the scala language make it very easy to create libraries which look like a domain-specific language (or DSL). Look at scala-test for example:
describe("MyCoolClass") {
it("should do cool stuff") {
val c = new MyCoolClass
c.prop should be ("cool")
}
}
(There are lots more examples of this - I found out this one yesterday). There is much talk about which new features are going in the Java language in JDK7 (project coin). Many of these features are special syntactic sugar to deal with some specific issue. Scala has been designed with some simple rules that mean new keywords for every little annoyance are not needed.
Another goal of Scala was to bridge the gap between functional and object-oriented languages. It contains many constructs inspired (i.e. copied from!) functional languages. I'm thing of the incredibly powerful pattern-matching, the actor-based concurrency framework and (of course) first- and higher-order functions.
Of course, your question said that there was a specific purpose and I've just given 3 separate reasons; you'll probably have to ask Martin Odersky!
One more of the original design goals was of course to create a language which runs on the Java Virtual Machine and is fully interoperable with Java classes. This has (at least) two advantages:
you can take advantage of the ubiquity, stability, features and reputation of the JVM. (think management extensions, JIT compilation, advanced Garbage Collection etc)
you can still use all your favourite Java libraries, both 3rd party and your own. If this wasn't the case, it would be a significant obstacle to using Scala commercially in many cases (mine for example).
Agree with previous answers but recommend the Introduction to An Overview of the Scala Programming Language:
The work on Scala stems from a research effort to develop better language support for component software. There are two hypotheses that we would like to validate with the Scala experiment. First, we postulate that a programming language for component software needs to be scalable in the sense that the same concepts can describe small as well as large parts. Therefore, we concentrate on mechanisms for abstraction, composition, and decomposition rather than adding a large set of primitives which might be useful for components at some level of scale, but not at other levels. Second, we postulate that scalable support for components can be provided by a programming language which unifes and generalizes object-oriented and functional programming. For statically typed languages, of which Scala is an instance, these two paradigms were up to now largely separate. (Odersky)
I'd personally classify Scala alongside Python in terms of which problems it solves and how. The conspicuous difference and occasional complaint is Type complexity. I agree Scala's abstractions are complicated and at times seemingly convoluted but for a few points:
They're also mostly optional.
Scala's compiler is like free testing and documentation as cyclomatic complexity and lines of code escalate.
When aptly implemented Scala can perform otherwise all but impossible operations behind consistent and coherent APIs. From Scala 2.8 Collections:
For instance, a String (or rather: its backing class RichString) can be seen as a sequence of Chars, yet it is not a generic collection type. Nevertheless, mapping a character to character map over a RichString should again yield a RichString, as in the following interaction with the Scala REPL:
scala> "abc" map (x => (x + 1).toChar)
res1: scala.runtime.RichString = bcd
But what happens if one applies a function from Char to Int to a string? In that case, we cannot produce a string as result, it has to be some sequence of Int elements instead. Indeed one gets:
"abc" map (x => (x + 1))
res2: scala.collection.immutable.Vector[Int] = Vector(98, 99, 100)
So it turns out that map yields different types depending on what the result type of the passed function argument is! (Odersky)
Since it's functional and uses actors (as I understand it, please comment if I've got this wrong) it makes it very easy to scale nearly anything up to any number of CPUs.
That said, I see Scala as kind of a test bed for new language features. Throw in the kitchen sink and see what happens.
My personal opinion is that for any apps involving a team of more than 3 people you are more productive with a language with Very Simple and Restrictive Syntax just because the entire job becomes more how you interact with others as opposed to just coding to make the computer do something.
The more people you add, the more time you are going to spend explaining what ?: means or the difference between | and || as applied to two booleans (In Java, you'll find very few people know).