Tony Morris

Well, again, twitter cannot do justice to such an excellent and important question. Here is a *very generous* run down. https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/1pjjy5/odersky_the_trouble_with_types_strange_loop_2013/cd3bgcu/ …

I have seen that post before. @kemtt is squarely in the pure FP camp, and the issues mentioned primarily arise when doing pure FP. I don't agree that those limitations make Scala unusable. There are many successful companies that use Scala heavily, with great success.

Try to address the specifics of the post, instead of the properties of the person. I know it's The Scala Way to discard critical analysis in favour of properties of a person, but it won't help you in the end. No, there are no successful companies because of Scala.

1/ "No, there are no successful companies because of Scala." - not what I said. I don't think there are many companies that are successful *because* of a language. There are many companies that use Scala heavily and are successful in doing so. Case in point Twitter.

OK, I just wanted to clarify that in the brevity of Twitter. Yes, there are successful companies, despite having used Scala. Please don't put people in tribes. I hold 3x Sun Java Certifications and used to work on the JDK. Am I still in the tribe? Not even no.

Sure, I should have worded it differently. The limitations mentioned in the post are primarily encountered when using Scala for pure FP, and using category theory inspired techniques. This is not the only way to write Scala code.

Well I appreciate the less personal rewording. But now it is completely incorrect. It has nothing to do with "using Scala for pure FP." I look forward to your detailed response to the contrary.

There are references to monad transformers, Foldable and Traversable typeclasses, Comonads and Scalaz. All techniques / technologies used in pure FP. I don't think any of the observations are technically wrong, just that there are ways to Scala where they aren't a big problem.