You want, at the very least, wrapper libraries to hide some of the nastier Java design patterns, so every time you add a Java dependency you will either have to find out its API and wrap the parts you need in some Scala code
Kind of describes why I have never succeeded in going beyond Groovy (despite trying). Despite all the claims, all the JVM language's claims of interop never pan out nicely in reality. Scala in particular is terrible because it replaces all the collections with its own and then you need layers of conversions between them which introduce overheads and idiosyncracies. On the other hand Groovy explicitly tries to have as little impedance mismatch with Java. It "automatically" enhances Java APIs with useful / functional methods so every Java API magically gets better without you doing anythign. With groovy you can really have what most people wanted, which is a "nicer Java", rather than a completely different language.
Comments
Kind of describes why I have never succeeded in going beyond Groovy (despite trying). Despite all the claims, all the JVM language's claims of interop never pan out nicely in reality. Scala in particular is terrible because it replaces all the collections with its own and then you need layers of conversions between them which introduce overheads and idiosyncracies. On the other hand Groovy explicitly tries to have as little impedance mismatch with Java. It "automatically" enhances Java APIs with useful / functional methods so every Java API magically gets better without you doing anythign. With groovy you can really have what most people wanted, which is a "nicer Java", rather than a completely different language.