What convinced me that Kotlin wasn't for me was Andrey Breslav's reasoning why he insisted on sticking to Scala's confusing "Unit" terminology instead of termin

What convinced me that Kotlin wasn't for me was Andrey Breslav's reasoning why he insisted on sticking to Scala's confusing "Unit" terminology instead of terminology that actually makes sense [0]. > Why we don't call it "Void": because the word "void" means "nothing", and there's another type, Nothing, that means just "no value at all", i.e. the computation did not complete normally (looped forever or threw an exception). We could not afford the clash of meanings. And then he doubles down on it in the comments: > "Unit" just stands for "something that has only one value", it's a traditional name, comes from functional languages. I agree that this name is not very intuitive, but we failed to invent a better name. He managed to convince me that Kotlin's highest priority was pointless academic nitpicking, and that's not what I'm looking for in a language. What I wanted was a solid JVM language that avoids all the unnecessary boilerplate of Java without diving headfirst into a morass of functional programming like Scala. I want something that's 100% practicality and straightforwardness, not something that thinks trying to emulate higher math is something to aspire to. Well, I guess there's still Jython, even if it is stuck on an ancient version of Python... (edit: oh, and Groovy... forgot about it because most people just use it for Gradle scripting) [0] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22654932/what-is-the-purpose-of-unit-returning-in-functions https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22654932/what-is-the-pur...