Hacker News Reader

I see very little gain for quite a high price here. It would break the grammar quite a bit, potentially causing even breaking changes, for something that is usually not absent even in languages that do strong type inference.

The proposed changes don’t have these negatives, while still provide benefits.

View on HN

It's not as bad as it seems because the language already have constructors. So instead of having a peculiar case for constructors, you unify constructors and methods by saying that void does not have to be specified.

And i do not buy your argument that it will break the grammar, the parser of javac consider constructors as methods.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com