A Tour of Scala VS whichever-compiles

Martin Odersky is just a very nice guy and I get the impression that he isn't keen on saying "no", which is how you end up with a language that allows you to use xml tags inline (no longer supported in Scala 3),

https://github.com/scala/scala-xml/wiki/Getting-started

The "opinionated" Scala are the Typelevel and Zio stacks, which are very cool.

The problem with the "better Java" approach is that although it has helped Scala's growth a lot, it has also made it susceptible to Kotlin. The Scala code that doesn't use the advanced type magic can be straightforwardly rewritten in Kotlin instead. Kotlin also stops your bored developers from building neat type abstractions that no one else understands.

People who use Scala only has a "better Java" can now use Kotlin has a "better "better Java"".

https://github.com/scala/scala-xml/releases is now published separately from the main language.

I don't think "Rustaholics" need to be told about this? See for example https://github.com/m-ou-se/whichever-compiles

You can't build an IDE that definitely just "understands Rust macros" since procedural macros in particular are in effect modifying your compiler. Maud is a proc macro.

Mara's whichever_compiles! macro for example: https://github.com/m-ou-se/whichever-compiles -- that macro is forking your compiler to try out all the branches and throwing away branches which caused a compile error.

Clearly your IDE should throw its hands up and say, I don't understand what this does, I give up.

In general doing something useful with Rust macros is a more tractable problem for an IDE than say the C pre-processor, because Rust's macros have a stronger syntax, but the proc macro is potentially much too powerful / dangerous to try to evaluate.