First of all, you completely misunderstand my point. I neither ask people to judge Java based on some hypothetical future, nor ask for feedback on future design

First of all, you completely misunderstand my point. I neither ask people to judge Java based on some hypothetical future, nor ask for feedback on future designs. I acknowledged there's a real problem and mentioned we're exploring solutions, but even with the problem Java is the world's most popular typed programming language in 2023. Not every problem is big, and PL fans tend to grossly overestimate the cost of some cumbersomeness in a language and grossly underestimate the cost of language complexity because their preferences are often in the minority. Having said that, we have a few experiments with type-safe "checked exception transparency" for lambdas (and methods in general), but as always we like to sit on them for a few years because the cost of a bad feature may be much higher than the cost of a missing one. We only publicly discuss specific solutions once there's something to be gained by such a discussion and once we've decided that the problem merits a solution in the short term. > Is just complete fiction. I was responding to a statement about deprecating Optional in favour of an ADT, and hinted at this design, which is under exploration (https://openjdk.org/projects/amber/design-notes/patterns/pattern-match-object-model https://openjdk.org/projects/amber/design-notes/patterns/pat...): case Optional.empty() -> ... case Optional.of(var x) -> ... It's not complete fiction, this is actual stuff we're working on, but not everything we explore will end up in the language.