Those erased generics that you call "half baked" are the reason why language interop works so much better in Java that in .NET. The combination of subtype polymorphism and parametric polymorphism means choosing a variance strategy. If you reify generics with subtypable arguments that means that you must bake a variance strategy into the platform -- which is what .NET has done -- even though languages have very different ones (in particular, untyped and typed languages will have different variance). So on the Java platform, the Java language, Kotlin, and Clojure all have different variance, yet they can share data structures with no runtime conversion. The cost of this platform compatibility is exactly three very minor annoyances [1] in the Java language. For the price of these three minor annoyances, the reward Java has reaped is a large polyglot ecosystem that's a favorite of language implementors. The Java language, too, the one with those actual three minor inconveniences, is also much more popular than C#. So overall, I think it is hard to argue that C#'s rewards from reified generics are greater than Java's from erased generics.

It really doesn't take much of an effort to defend Java's choice once you know what the ramifications are and what the results have been. Partly because of the mistake of reified generics, .NET is de-facto a one-language platform. The language, like most programming languages, is fine, but given Java's growing emphasis on being one of the best runtimes for Python, Ruby and other languages as well, it's very clear that the two platforms have very different goals. Reifying subtypable generics is a good choice for a one-language platform but a bad choice for a polyglot one.

[1]: In order of decreasing annoyance: no overloading by generic argument, no `new T[]`, no `instanceof List<String>`. All three are very minor concerns, and the last is possibly even an antipattern.

"Infinitely" more useful seems like a stretch. Both languages made valid design decisions with their lambdas: autogenerated types means not every variant of lambda needs a backing interface, but it also means that the types are a world unto themselves and not integrated with well-established interfaces and abstract classes in the way that Java lambdas are, resulting in conflicting mechanisms for passing code to adhere to a requirement. I find the unification of SAM types and lambdas to be elegant in a class-based OOP language (and actually preferable to the Smalltalk/Ruby block model too), but it's clearly subjective.

My criticism of properties hiding side-effects as attribute reads is mostly derived from one of the earliest books about the CLR; was it "The CLR via C#"? I'll have to check. The critique isn't Java-inspired; getters have the same problem of course. The point is that a getter is a method call, so you expect potential side-effects. You don't expect side-effects from a property read, although C# does tend to use capital letters for properties, to be fair.

While on the topic of CLR, I realise the DLR exposed dynamic typing primarily to make the CLR a better target for dynamic languages; I was arguing that exposing that up to C# wasn't necessary. C# is the flagship CLR language, sure, but that doesn't mean it must expose _every_ feature of it. Java also added `invokedynamic` for similar reasons but didn't feel the need to expose it to its flagship language directly in language syntax.

pron covered the nuances around generic type erasure in another comment better than I did, so I won't reiterate. Like you, I still mildly prefer reified generics over erasure as a language user, but the points raised by pron and Bracha are absolutely real. The ability to do runtime type checks and default values on generics seem like antipatterns, so I'm glad Java doesn't support those _specific_ features of reification even if I like a lot of the others parts.

Did it drop the idea of assembly-wide opt-ins to stricter behaviour, meaning all NRTs can be reasoned about in the same way without considering a configuration flag somewhere like PHP? That does sound like an improvement.

Doing the change gradually, without breaking existing code or requiring potentially-ecosystem-breaking opt-ins does seem eminantly sensible and user-friendly. I was being too harsh to C# here. Java's `Optional` doesn't even warn about it itself being null, for example. You need static tooling and code analysis for that. C#'s solution does at least try to solve that, albeit at the cost of more complexity.

I said "monad-like" rather than "monadic" for that reason, but arguably it doesn't even go far enough to be considered monadic-like. Certainly this article would agree: https://blog.developer.atlassian.com/optional-broken/