Optional - The Mother of All Bikesheds by Stuart Marks

These are pretty weak arguments For the first point - val/var "More importantly, it doesn’t offer its immutable counterpart, val. You still need to add the final keyword, which nearly nobody uses." This super undermines the criticism. "It has the feature but people don't use it" isn't exactly much to write home about. Just use `final var` if you want. Make "final var over var" the same force culturally as JS's const over let" "However, the developers of Optional designed it for return values only. Nothing is available in the language syntax for methods parameters and return values. To cope with this, a bunch of libraries provides compile-time annotations:" This flow of causality here is slightly incoherent. The phrasing implies that if there was a version of optional that was designed for method parameters that would be better and there would be less of a need for compile-time annotations. Here it is sealed interface Option<T> { record Some<T>(T value) implements Option<T> {} record None<T>() implements Option<T> {} } This has "better" semantics than Optional for storing in fields and for using as method parameters. The existence of this does not obviate the desire to have null static analysis, so Optional really isn't that related. [this video] It is true though that Kotlin has a more consistent story here, but there are active efforts to improve it for Java. Also, the discussion of extension functions points out that static methods cannot be chained like instance methods - corre