That's fine but it's still a bad choice. The problem is that it defaults to everything nullable and adds noise for non-nullable. This is backwards; in the overwhelming majority of software that people use Java for, non-null is the common case and nullability is the exception.
Kotlin and Typescript got this right. Nobody wants! to! write code! like! this! And they won't, so the feature won't get used and we're back to everything being nullable.
Except there's no choice here. It's a draft of an exploration of a portion of a feature.
Drafts are ideas that have not even been submitted for consideration for inclusion in the roadmap. You can find drafts over ten years old that have long since been superseded by other ones or abandoned altogether: https://openjdk.org/jeps/0#Draft-JEPs. Some JDK engineers write JEP drafts when they feel they get close to something they would like to propose, while others write drafts for pretty much any idea they have.
> The problem is that it defaults to everything nullable and adds noise for non-nullable
It doesn't, though. Even if this draft ever becomes a JEP (and I don't know if it or anything like it will), in its present form or another, it would still, like most JEPs, describe only part of the feature. It's perfectly on point for one JEP to describe the explicit nullability annotations, while another describes the defaults. Smaller features than this have been split into two or three JEPs. This is just how Java features have been described and delivered for years now (see how many JEPs patterns were split into: https://openjdk.org/jeps/0).
It's perfectly okay to dislike some design, but I find it strange to assume, based on a draft of a portion of a feature that one of the most experienced and successful programming language design teams in the history of software is likely to get it wrong. Maybe wait until there's an actual proposal and a roadmap for the complete feature before critiquing it? It's like seeing a draft of some building's foundations by a prestigious architectural firm and saying, these idiots forgot to plan a roof.
I'm not saying that the people who wrote this are dumb, or that Java is a bad language, or that it's time to move to Kotlin, etc. I use Java every day. I pick Java for greenfield projects. I'm on Team Java.
I'm saying I don't like this proposal. I happily accept that this proposal might not become part of the Java language. That's great! I'm spending time writing this in public specifically to discourage it in some tiny way.
It would be fair to tell me "you should write this to the proposal writers directly". And I understand how the language snobbery on HN might make you feel defensive - I often feel that too. But I think my criticism here is valid.
And I'm trying to tell you that this document is not what you think it is. It's a rough sketch of a building's foundations and your critique is about the roof. Even if this were to become a proposal, it's likely the matter of defaults of this feature will be covered by a different JEP, because Java features are usually broken down into multiple JEPs. What you're complaining about may be part of the feature, but it is not covered by this document. If this becomes a JEP and another JEP talks about nullabilty defaults, then you could criticise the selection of defaults, but that particular aspect of this feature is outside the scope of this particular document. So one, this is not a proposal, and two, you haven't seen the description of the part of the feature you want to criticise.
We are well aware that splitting features over multiple JEPs can invite such misunderstandings, but that doesn't change the fact that Java features are, at least currently, split over multiple JEPs. We are also well aware that if this does become a proposal, adding ! everywhere is not what we want, but we want to cover that aspect in a different document, as we usually do. Most Java users aren't confused by this because they don't read the JEPs at all, but such splits help focus the discussion on one aspect of a feature at a time. So your desire for a non-nullable default is very understandable, it's just not relevant as a critique of this document.
For example, the virtual threads JEP described a pinning limitation. We knew it reduced the applicability of that JEP and said as much. We just wanted to address it in a different JEP, and so we did (https://openjdk.org/jeps/491). Ever since the JDK switched to time-boxed, semiannual releases, this is how we've delivered features: in multiple pieces. The same applies to Valhalla.
