I think DPP has a fundamentally flawed argument: He seems to be assuming that all those Java developers that fail to learn Scala are using Java successfully.
Sure, their projects may compile, they may even be deployed and used on a daily basis. But are they maintainable? Are they able to function when load increases? Are there hidden race conditions that go unnoticed for years? If a user inputs bad data will the application suddenly throw NPEs? Will moving to a different hardware platform with more cores expose a fatal deadlock?
Scala's "weakness" is not that it is harder than Java, it's that it exposes the difficulty and complications of software engineering to developers at an earlier point in the development cycle.
If your standard of success is compiling and deploying a product, than yes, I'll admit Scala makes it 'harder' than java. However, if you define success as writing defect free, performant software, than I'd argue that Scala is actually easier than Java.
"But are they maintainable? Are they able to function when load increases? Are there hidden race conditions that go unnoticed for years? If a user inputs bad data will the application suddenly throw NPEs? Will moving to a different hardware platform with more cores expose a fatal deadlock?"
All of these are secondary to turning a profit. If the only developer(s) the business can afford commits these mistakes, so be it; but if the developer is adding more value than he is costing, it still makes sense. And no amount of appeal to technical superiority will change this; there are too many businesses that can benefit from someone able to write software, but not enough returns for them all to hire great devs. This is basic economics. You can't fight it outside of a non-existent world of surplus.
Those developers are, largely, still employed at companies that are still not bankrupt. If Scala changes either of those, it will encounter resistance, no matter how bad the original code was.
Perhaps he doesn't care that they are using Java unsuccessfully -- he is saying that he prefers they not have or have fewer failed projects in Scala...
Most software doesn't need to be performant or defect free. It just needs to be barely good enough to accomplish some task. An average developer with an average tool like Java can meet that criterion.
Gotcha. In contrast, having a C program borking itself to death with wild pointer errors is usually not good enough. Thus, Java is in fact wildly successful. (whether or not you and I are tired of it, and want something mo' better)
Sure, their projects may compile, they may even be deployed and used on a daily basis. But are they maintainable? Are they able to function when load increases? Are there hidden race conditions that go unnoticed for years? If a user inputs bad data will the application suddenly throw NPEs? Will moving to a different hardware platform with more cores expose a fatal deadlock?
Scala's "weakness" is not that it is harder than Java, it's that it exposes the difficulty and complications of software engineering to developers at an earlier point in the development cycle.
If your standard of success is compiling and deploying a product, than yes, I'll admit Scala makes it 'harder' than java. However, if you define success as writing defect free, performant software, than I'd argue that Scala is actually easier than Java.