Which is where they'll remain.

(snark begets snark)

As Scala didn't yet exist when this message was written, its author was missing the enlightenment Scala provides.

Would you please explain what about this amuses Scala programmers?

Scala is largely a set of iterative improvements with a syntax that's designed to handle data workflows well. It's not a big deal, it's not that exciting, it doesn't use all of the latest technologies, and that's why I think it has a bright future.

This doesn't address closures vs objects at all.

F# also has object expressions that are just as syntactically convenient as closures.

From what little I know of F#, it seems a lot like OCaml (as in, I don't know enough to know of any differences, other than that F# is a .NET language). From what slightly more I know about OCaml, objects are there, but almost nobody uses them and everyone pretends that they're not in the language. Is F# similar in this regard, or are objects considered fair game?

Idiomatic F# code does tend to use pattern matching more than ad-hoc polymorphism, but objects are still very much considered fair game since the major value proposition of the language is its ability to leverage the .NET ecosystem.