> Still if I need JVM then Scala or Kotlin are still preferable over Java.
That's so 2010. I would avoid Scala like plague. It is a soup of all features imagined and some more. Java is difficult for novice. With Scala even experienced senior devs can look into a snippet and be befuddled. It is designed by academicians who thought clever looking choice is better.
About a decade ago, some Scala library authors thinking that "everything is better as a DSL" gave Scala a reputation for being a hieroglyphics soup, but that cannot be farther from the truth today. It's a really nice language to learn and to use, and the only one in my experience that I would want to take with me to scale from a quick dozen-liner script bash-style to a highly concurrent, highly available server application, from native to jvm to JS.
And the foothold in academics has some practical perks, too, like a sound type system (DOT calculus), compatibility guarantees at a theoretical level (TASTy), and what's cooking in the area of capture checking might be a general solution to many of the industry's biggest challenges (e.g. colorless asynchronous programming, safe errors, safe resource management, ... Think of Rust's borrow checker as a special case of this, and the consequences for scala-native as a systems programming platform).
> It is designed by academicians who thought clever looking choice is better.
That's just not true. That's the typelevel ecosystem. The official Scala toolkit mostly includes haoyi libraries which is pretty much Python like Scala.
That's so 2010. I would avoid Scala like plague. It is a soup of all features imagined and some more. Java is difficult for novice. With Scala even experienced senior devs can look into a snippet and be befuddled. It is designed by academicians who thought clever looking choice is better.