I've got plenty of dislike for type erasure, and I do agree that it makes the language more complicated. An instance where the Java language was sacrificed to e

I've got plenty of dislike for type erasure, and I do agree that it makes the language more complicated. An instance where the Java language was sacrificed to ease virtual machine implementation and backwards compatibility. > The stream is a very well known and completely different concept and it is widely used in reactive programming, they just stole that concept to use it in a completely non obvious way. Java streams seem to meet the ideas of stream processing to me. Given a sequence, apply transformations in order, possibly in a transparently parallel fashion. Compare the Wiki definition with the `BaseStream` interface documentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_processing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_processing http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/stream/BaseStream.html http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/stream/Ba... > Finally extension methods are perfectly obvious. They are just syntactic sugar for static methods, I hope that at least you agree that static method are the gist of obviousness. Yes, I of course agree. My problem is that extension methods hide where they live, by pretending to live on the type. And to be fair, I have the same issue with static imports in Java. When I look at a function or method call, it should be immediately apparent where control flow is going to go. That's not the case with either static imports or extension functions; I have to resolve the method name first.