> And it is widely agreed that Scala is much less verbose and easier to work with than Java.<p>> ...<p>> - it [Scala] can be verbose sometimes,<p>> - Second problem is its learning curve. Scala is not easy to learn: the language has a huge feature set.<p>> - Scala’s IDE support is much less mature than Java.<p>So maybe Scala is not that less verbose nor that much easier to work with than Java after all.<p>I think the article contradicting itself on these points is a great illustration of why Scala never became mainstream. Scala certainly offers advantages over Java (I love the traits, the implicit conversions and case classes) but it also comes at a significant cost (feature set and surface area of the language, mediocre IDE support compared to Java, slow compilation, terrible backward compatibility story, feature creep, etc...).<p>Also, these arguments do not support just the idea that Scala is not a glue for Java but the more general idea that Scala is not intrinsically superior to Java, which is why it still has a minuscule mind share on the JVM[1].<p>[1] <a href="http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends/scala%2C+java.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends/scala%2C+java.html</a>