Honestly no. A lot of the complex Scala you see is because Scala doesn&#x27;t have syntax for something and so you have to put it together out of other things. Type lambdas and Miles Sabin&#x27;s unboxed union types trick are prime examples of cases where adding some syntax would make a lot of real-world Scala a lot more readable. Likewise ADT case classes where you don&#x27;t really want the class to be its own type - a little syntax would save a lot of repetitive &quot;smart constructors&quot;.<p>Also there are cases where it&#x27;s not more syntax that&#x27;s needed, but different syntax. E.g. the way irrefutable unpacks in for&#x2F;yields desugar to a (with)filter call is just dumb.