Scala feels very much like "Java done right". Scala solves a lot of problems with Java and is better in every respect. In the same way, Subversion solved a lot of problems with CVS and is very much "CVS done right".
But the opportunity that was missed was that, just at the Subversion developers never asked themselves "Is centralized version control the right way to do things?", I feel that the Scala developers equally were so focused on fixing the myriad of problems with Java, they never took the step back and asked themselves "Is imperative/mutable state/exposing-Java's-warts-for-compatibility the right way to do things?" Of course, they've built a much better Java, but it feels that they've been so focused on the trees that they've not seen the wood [1].
Scala feels very much like "Java done right". Scala solves a lot of problems with Java and is better in every respect. In the same way, Subversion solved a lot of problems with CVS and is very much "CVS done right".
But the opportunity that was missed was that, just at the Subversion developers never asked themselves "Is centralized version control the right way to do things?", I feel that the Scala developers equally were so focused on fixing the myriad of problems with Java, they never took the step back and asked themselves "Is imperative/mutable state/exposing-Java's-warts-for-compatibility the right way to do things?" Of course, they've built a much better Java, but it feels that they've been so focused on the trees that they've not seen the wood [1].
[1] For non-native English speakers the idiom is http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/cant+see+the+wood+for+th...