Why doesn't Scala have static members inside a class?

Question

I know you can define them indirectly achieve something similar with companion objects but I am wondering why as a language design were statics dropped o

Answer 1

These are the things that pop into my head when I think about how statics could complicate things:

1) Inheritance as well as polymorphism would require special rules. Here is an example:

// This is Java
public class A {
  public static int f() {
    return 10;
  }
}

public class B extends A {
  public static int f() {
    return 5;
  }
}

public class Main {
  public static void main(String[] args) {
    A a = new A();
    System.out.println(a.f());
    B b = new B();
    System.out.println(b.f());
    A ba = new B();
    System.out.println(ba.f());
   }
}

If you are 100% sure about what gets printed out, good for you. The rest of us can safely rely on mighty tools like @Override annotation, which is of course optional and the friendly "The static method f() from the type A should be accessed in a static way" warning. This leads us to

2) The "static way" of accessing stuff is a further special rule, which complicates things.

3) Static members cannot be abstract. I guess you can't have everything, right?

And again, these are just things which came to my mind after I gave the matter some thought for a couple of minutes. I bet there are a bunch of other reasons, why statics just don't fit into the OO paradigm.