[VagueMag]

> Some inconsistency of choices also kinda baffles me. First they added support for skipping necessity of mentioning generic type inside <> during instantiation, only to introduce local vars later that require you to mention generic types within the same <>.

I just came across this as a potential footgun the other day. I had a var list = new ArrayList<>(), then later added a bunch of Foo's into the list, and then when I called an overloaded method with the signatures log(Object obj) and log(List<Foo> fooList), it was calling the Object version. I would think some better type inference should be possible there, but if not, making programmers declare the type(s) at least once is a necessary constraint.

[kaba0]

Why don’t just write var list = new ArrayList<Foo>()? The point of inference inside <> has always been to save you from repeating yourself from copying from the left to the right, which is a non-issue when you are saved from specifying it on the left.

[VagueMag]

Completely agree, but it did surprise me a bit and I didn't find much when I googled around for "don't mix var and the diamond operator."