Well, they didn’t break the existing language, so not sure. It depends on what do you find readable/difficult. Because contrary to the usual opinion on the language, I believe it is not “difficult” - it has much fewer exceptional rules than Java for example. Sure, some features are more expressive and that comes with big responsibility, but to actually answer your question, some implicit usage is indeed cleaned up making it much less magical-looking.
But scala 3 has been a very huge update, including having a new compile flag that will turn to language “null-safe” (so a nullable String will have String | Null as a type). So it might be worth it to have a new look at the language.
Null safety sounds great. My big gripe was all of the symbols and how they had different meanings in different contexts. That said, in most cases it's not a real problem, but with a team you can end up with some messy stuff.
Yeah I agree that operator overloading should be used very sparingly, I often dislike it in Haskell as well. Fortunately it seems to be less and less often used in modern libraries.
Well, they didn’t break the existing language, so not sure. It depends on what do you find readable/difficult. Because contrary to the usual opinion on the language, I believe it is not “difficult” - it has much fewer exceptional rules than Java for example. Sure, some features are more expressive and that comes with big responsibility, but to actually answer your question, some implicit usage is indeed cleaned up making it much less magical-looking.
But scala 3 has been a very huge update, including having a new compile flag that will turn to language “null-safe” (so a nullable String will have String | Null as a type). So it might be worth it to have a new look at the language.