Unfortunately, for now it is an experimental feature. But thanks for pointing it out, it seems that it's coming :)
Sorry, but that's the most ass-backwards point I've heard. The language provides too much power and flexibility, and you want to be locked into one specific format, syntax, and the subsequent reinventing-the-wheel nightmare that causes most projects to go horribly over time, budget, and stress levels?
The language subsetting issue is a huge problem, c.f. C++. The complexity of Scala makes it very difficult to understand a lot of library code, even if you're quite competent in it. To keep code for a large code base manageable and understandable, most companies will end up defining the "allowed Scala" in a coding standard. This is a failure of the language, IMO.
Also, I would like a language that's as close to the JVM type system as possible, yielding the same performance as Java in all instances (including on Android, where Dalvik doesn't have the same GC and optimization characteristics).
Generics are an inherent part of what Scala is. Surely it takes care of some gotchas, but I see many code samples where I feel like puking.Generics weren't really meant for languages without Hindley-Milner.
Scala is not dynamic by any stretch of imagination, no matter how much wishful thinking you can incur because it has structural typing -- I see this notion flying by all the time, but people generally don't know what they are talking about.E.g. you don't see people saying this same thing about Haskell, when compared to Lisp, even if Haskell is even more concise than Scala, taking structural typing to extremes.
What I mean was that I'd like something like the dynamic types in C#.