>Do you have anything worthwhile to add to this discussion?
Do you?
For one, he mentions what he wrote is just his "2 cents", and he is entitled to his opinion.
Second, he provides factually true statements to support his opinion, e.g that you need to make syntax changes to compile previous Scala code on later versions of the Scala compiler.
You might agree or not agree with him, but he states what he believes, and supports it with arguments and counter-examples (e.g the Go reference).
OTOH, besides the insult to the parent, your comment is content-free.
>> Do you have anything worthwhile to add to this discussion?
> Do you?
I already have?
> he is entitled to his opinion
This doesn't mean he should be immune to scrutiny when making claims which are intended to drag the discussion into boring flame-wars.
> he provides factually true statements to support his opinion
Like "I'd have to rewrite it in a year."? Have a look at how long Scala releases are supported, both officially and with commercial support. That statement is just factually false.
Apart from that it's the usual comparison with C++ which don't provide any interesting insight except showing that the author has not much clue about the topic.
> release some kind of stable "spec"
Scala, like Java or C++, are evolving languages. While having some kind of mechanically checked spec (which is what Scala developers are working on) would be great, we have to accept that almost no language manages to do that.
All three languages (and most other languages as well) have compilers which differ from the spec in some cases, and specs which leave out important details important to compiler implementations. I don't see the reason for singling out one language.
> Go [...]
Well, it's not kind of hard to have a stable language (let's just ignore all the changes in Go which broke programs for a minute (Go's runtime and its "GC" are probably the largest offenders)) if it could have been rightfully called obsolete in the 1970ies.
What's missing in this comparison is the level of usefulness achieved by the language. As an example, whitespace and brainfuck have probably been stable right after their creation, it's just they are no that useful to solve today's problems.
More expressive language are harder to keep stable, but it's not that you don't gain anything in return.
Do you?
For one, he mentions what he wrote is just his "2 cents", and he is entitled to his opinion.
Second, he provides factually true statements to support his opinion, e.g that you need to make syntax changes to compile previous Scala code on later versions of the Scala compiler.
You might agree or not agree with him, but he states what he believes, and supports it with arguments and counter-examples (e.g the Go reference).
OTOH, besides the insult to the parent, your comment is content-free.