I don't really see what this has to do with the article itself. It's totally ridiculous to compare learning a new language, developer tools etc. with adding a single library to a project. Also, Scala is specifically designed to bring many benefits at the language and library level that Guava won't.
I really find this kind of Snark disappointing on HN, and one of the many examples of a decline in the quality of comments that PG has talked about.
Sorry to have been so prompt. What I meant was "if you want more than that, I would recommand Scala".
Scala is close to Java because it compiles to JVM and you can use Java libraries in scala (so that's not a big deal to switch to it).
You can nearly code in scala like in Java with some syntax improvment and in a functional way.
I agree with him - what Guava brings (functional programming, better safety in types) is something that is better done at language level like in Scala.
Either you like Java and you don't need Guava, or you want functional programming and other goodness and for that Scala is a better language.
I'd have to agree. One of the main benefits touted for guava in this article is the ability to use java libs with cleaner syntax. Scala already enables us to do that, and a lot more. I've coded java for the last 12 years, but have to admit there's no denying that there are cleaner ways of getting things done in Scala, Ruby, Python etc. of those 3 scala is the only one fast enough to be taken seriously.
