3 ms·

I'd vote no on most of these for Java language itself; it's supposed to be a C-like language, not a Ruby-like language. However, the jvm doesn't care what the s

I'd vote no on most of these for Java language itself; it's supposed to be a C-like language, not a Ruby-like language. However, the jvm doesn't care what the source language is, it just cares about bytecode. These belong in a Kotlin or other language.

Aaron2222 3y ago
A lot of these are no-gos anyway from a backwards compatibility perspective (many of which being entirely syntactical), and they're already in Kotlin, so I'm not sure why you wouldn't just use that. A couple I could potentially see making their way into Java though.
- exabrial 3y ago
  Exactly my thoughts. Let Java be Java. It's not that I disagree with most of them I just don't think it needs to have every bell, whistle, and doodad either. Simplicity is beauty.
  - Aaron2222 3y ago
    No point completely reshaping Java into something that's already on the JVM anyway.