[dreae]

Reading the first article I was left with the impression that the author's team switched to Kotlin just for the sake of switching to Kotlin, tried their darndest to write it like it was Java, and then was just upset that it wasn't Java.

[lmm]

I read it as: the author was a Kotlin skeptic whose team wanted to use Kotlin, so was trying to find out whether they could use Kotlin for the sake of their team while still writing Java-like code themselves. Given how Kotlin pushers have been marketing it as close to Java with easier Java interop than other JVM languages (falsely if you ask me), that seems like a reasonable approach on the original author's part.

[on_and_off]

I don't think that setting yourself up for failure is a good way to approach a change :/

[lmm]

Doing the thing the marketing tells you you can do is only "setting yourself up for failure" if you know the marketing is bollocks. (And even in that case, it might be the easiest way to expose the fact).

[ASalazarMX]

Changing by not changing.

[edem]

You hit the nail head on. I don't think it makes sense to write code like language X in language Y. If you try to do so you'll just get upset and quit.

[DeonPenny]

Exactly how I read it