Over the last few months I’ve dabbled in two new languages. Swift and Kotlin. These two languages have a number of similarities. Indeed, the similarities are so stark that I wonder if this isn’t a new trend in our language churn. If so, it is a dark path.

Both languages have integrated some functional characteristics. For example, they both have lambdas. This is a good thing, in general. The more we learn about functional programming, the better. These languages are both a far cry from a truly functional programming language; but every step in that direction is a good step.

My problem is that both languages have doubled down on strong static typing. Both seem to be intent on closing every single type hole in their parent languages. In the case of Swift, the parent language is the bizarre typeless hybrid of C and Smalltalk called Objective-C; so perhaps the emphasis on typing is understandable. In the case of Kotlin the parent is the already rather strongly typed Java.

Now I don’t want you to think that I’m opposed to statically typed languages. I’m not. There are definite advantages to both dynamic and static languages; and I happily use both kinds. I have a slight preference for dynamic typing; and so I use Clojure quite a bit. On the other hand, I probably write more Java than Clojure. So you can consider me bi-typical. I walk on both sides of the street – so to speak.

It’s not the fact that Swift and Kotlin are statically typed that has me concerned. Rather, it is the depth of that static typing.

I would not call Java a strongly opinionated language when it comes to static typing. You can create structures in Java that follow the type rules nicely; but you can also violate many of the type rules whenever you want or need to. The language complains a bit when you do; and throws up a few roadblocks; but not so many as to be obstructionist.

Swift and Kotlin, on the other hand, are completely inflexible when it comes to their type rules. For example, in Swift, if you declare a function to throw an exception , then by God every call to that function, all the way up the stack, must be adorned with a do-try block, or a try! , or a try? . There is no way, in this language, to silently throw an exception all the way to the top level; without paving a super-hiway for it up through the entire calling tree. (You can watch Justin and I struggle with this in our Mobile Application Case Study videos.)

Now, perhaps you think this is a good thing. Perhaps you think that there have been a lot of bugs in systems that have resulted from un-corralled exceptions. Perhaps you think that exceptions that aren’t escorted, step by step, up the calling stack are risky and error prone. And, of course, you would be right about that. Undeclared and unmanaged exceptions are very risky.

The question is: Whose job is it to manage that risk? Is it the language’s job? Or is it the programmer’s job?

In Kotlin, you cannot derive from a class, or override a function, unless you adorn that class or function as open . You also cannot override a function unless the overriding function is adorned with override . If you neglect to adorn a class with open , the language will not allow you to derive from it.

Now, perhaps you think this is a good thing. Perhaps you believe that inheritance and derivation hierarchies that are allowed to grow without bound are a source of error and risk. Perhaps you think we can eliminate whole classes of bugs by forcing programmers to explicitly declare their classes to be open . And you may be right. Derivation and inheritance are risky things. Lots can go wrong when you override a function in a derived class.

The question is: Whose job is it to manage that risk? Is it the language’s job? Or is it the programmer’s job.

Both Swift and Kotlin have incorporated the concept of nullable types. The fact that a variable can contain a null becomes part of the type of that variable. A variable of type String cannot contain a null ; it can only contain a reified String . On the other hand, a variable of type String? has a nullable type and can contain a null .

The rules of the language insist that when you use a nullable variable, you must first check that variable for null . So if s is a String? then var l = s.length() won’t compile. Instead you have to say var l = s.length() ?: 0 or var l = if (s!=null) s.length() else 0 .

Perhaps you think this is a good thing. Perhaps you have seen enough NPE s in your lifetime. Perhaps you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that unchecked null s are the cause of billions and billions of dollars of software failures. (Indeed, the Kotlin documentation calls the NPE the “Billion Dollar Bug”). And, of course, you are right. It is very risky to have null s rampaging around the system out of control.

The question is: Whose job is it to manage the null s. The language? Or the programmer?

These languages are like the little Dutch boy sticking his fingers in the dike. Every time there’s a new kind of bug, we add a language feature to prevent that kind of bug. And so these languages accumulate more and more fingers in holes in dikes. The problem is, eventually you run out of fingers and toes.

But before you run out of fingers and toes, you have created languages that contain dozens of keywords, hundreds of constraints, a tortuous syntax, and a reference manual that reads like a law book. Indeed, to become an expert in these languages, you must become a language lawyer (a term that was invented during the C++ era.)

This is the wrong path!

Ask yourself why we are trying to plug defects with language features. The answer ought to be obvious. We are trying to plug these defects because these defects happen too often.

Now, ask yourself why these defects happen too often. If your answer is that our languages don’t prevent them, then I strongly suggest that you quit your job and never think about being a programmer again; because defects are never the fault of our languages. Defects are the fault of programmers. It is programmers who create defects – not languages.

And what is it that programmers are supposed to do to prevent defects? I’ll give you one guess. Here are some hints. It’s a verb. It starts with a “T”. Yeah. You got it. TEST!

You test that your system does not emit unexpected null s. You test that your system handles null s at it’s inputs. You test that every exception you can throw is caught somewhere.

Why are these languages adopting all these features? Because programmers are not testing their code. And because programmers are not testing their code, we now have languages that force us to put the word open in front of every class we want to derive from. We now have languages that force us to adorn every function, all the way up the calling tree, with try! . We now have languages that are so constraining, and so over-specified, that you have to design the whole system up front before you can code any of it.

Consider: How do I know whether a class is open or not? How do I know if somewhere down the calling tree someone might throw an exception? How much code will I have to change when I finally discover that someone really needs to return a null up the calling tree?

All these constraints, that these languages are imposing, presume that the programmer has perfect knowledge of the system; before the system is written. They presume that you know which classes will need to be open and which will not. They presume that you know which calling paths will throw exceptions, and which will not. They presume that you know which functions will produce null and which will not.

And because of all this presumption, they punish you when you are wrong. They force you to go back and change massive amounts of code, adding try! or ?: or open all the way up the stack.

And how do you avoid being punished? There are two ways. One that works; and one that doesn’t. The one that doesn’t work is to design everything up front before coding. The one that does avoid the punishment is to override all the safeties.

And so you will declare all your classes and all your functions open . You will never use exceptions. And you will get used to using lots and lots of ! characters to override the null checks and allow NPE s to rampage through your systems.

Why did the nuclear plant at Chernobyl catch fire, melt down, destroy a small city, and leave a large area uninhabitable? They overrode all the safeties. So don’t depend on safeties to prevent catastrophes. Instead, you’d better get used to writing lots and lots of tests, no matter what language you are using!