Not everything is worth naming, if there isn't an obvious good name for somethink (like say, a Java Anonymous Classes) then why not allow it to have no name?
Java's objects aren't types even though they're mixed up with its type system. Objects are supposed to represent units of computation so anonymous classes aren't absurd.
But the reason why it seems that types without names are absurd is that types are only real for the interpreter or compiler. At runtime they aren't used anymore. So it's absurd that a construct made for humans to understand and describe code starts to become something opaque to human understanding because they're impossible to be named.
But the reason why it seems that types without names are absurd is that types are only real for the interpreter or compiler. At runtime they aren't used anymore. So it's absurd that a construct made for humans to understand and describe code starts to become something opaque to human understanding because they're impossible to be named.