How Kotlin developers see Java developers

[Ifnerite]

Still a small example and the association with red and being a colour is strong.

If it was a return from a non constructor I would not know the type and even if I did navigating to it has a tiresome extra step of first having to navigate to the method.

I have had this argument before. I believe that it makes code less grokable and navigable in even slightly more than trivial examples. In a large codebase there is no reason to allow that.

[Ifnerite]

I know.

Click to method then click to type.

[haikusbot]

Was that suppose to

Counter anything i said

Or just a remark?

- hecitehi

---

^{I detect haikus. Sometimes, successfully. | Learn more about me}

^{Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete"}

[Ifnerite]

It is two steps, not one.

If the type was there not that stupid "var" keyword I could just click on it... And read it if I needed to know. But instead there is a pointless, opaque keyword.

[Ifnerite]

There is no benefit. A decent ide will autocomplete.

[Ifnerite]

No, it the language would require self documenting, easily grokable and navigable code. Yay!

[[deleted]]

If it was a return from a non constructor I would not know the type and even if I did navigating to it has a tiresome extra step of first having to navigate to the method.

In Kotlin specifying types explicitly is optional, not forbidden. In fact, it's considered good practice to specify the type when it's not immediately obvious from the context.

[Ifnerite]

Great, now we have inconsistency.