Talk:Kotlin (programming language)

Draft articles related to this topic

See also:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kotlin (programming language) (last non-redirect version), which was created in January 2014.
• User:Be nt all/Kotlin (programming language), which is the version that existed prior to the July/August 2011 deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kotlin (programming language).

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

more on features

Nice article. I think it could be further improved with some more details on the following topics:

• nullpointer protection
• function literals
• operators
• a little more on how kotlin extends existing java framework classes (e.g. collections, String, etc)
• var vs val
• more on arrays and probably also on special arrays like IntArray

I added a bit on var vs val and function literals Ianmcxa (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Others:

• IDE support
• Build tool support
• any notable projects written in kotlin?

--K0zka (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Added some additional material/clarification on functions and primary constructors. 162.225.124.179 (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kotlin (programming language). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113103530/https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/Kotlin/Kotlin%20Build%20Tools to http://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/Kotlin/Kotlin%2BBuild%2BTools

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

DROP TABLE *

What is "DROP TABLE *" doing under file extension? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.217.1.5 (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Licence modification

As standard library is integral part of the language, I believe the license part could be expanded a little. Since I'm not sure how to do it properly, here's the link for anyone interested: https://github.com/JetBrains/kotlin/tree/master/license — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrexus (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracy with recent simplification of Kotlin page

A recent edit with the purpose of simplifying the language, leads to an inaccurate representation of facts. While JetBrains and Google have created the Kotlin Foundation, as outlined on the Kotlin Foundation site, Kotlin is not primarily sponsored by JetBrains and Google. Kotlin is primarily sponsored and developed by JetBrains, as indicated clearly on the Kotlin Web Site. My changes to clarify this have been reverted. Initially I've been accused of being a paid editor. Then I've been accused of being a professional marketer. And also been told that I have a conflict of interest because while I am not a paid editor, I work for the company. I disclose this in my edit. The fact that I work for the company should not get in the way of facts or inaccuracies. The fact that JetBrains develops Kotlin, and the Kotlin team are employed by JetBrains should not be viewed as promotional. I request that the changes I made which accurately reflect the facts as shown on the above cited sites, be re-instated.Hadihariri (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request

I am working at JetBrains and I have a conflict of interest with this article. I would like to request for editing regarding incorrect information.

• Current text: “Kotlin is sponsored by JetBrains and Google through the Kotlin Foundation.”
• Suggestion to edit: Kotlin is primarily sponsored and developed by JetBrains openly on GitHub. The Kotlin Foundation, which was created by JetBrains and Google, serves to protect, promote, and advance the development of Kotlin.

Thank you for your assistance. --JB2020M (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 26-NOV-2019

  Clarification requested  

• It is not known what is meant by the word primarily. When making distinctions about sponsorhips that are somehow divided amongst different entities, a specific metric should be used for clarity. For example, if Company A provides half of the creative material and three-quarters of the funding, then those portions should be described as 50% and 75%, respectively.
• With regards to the Foundation's purpose, that is already evident through the use of the phrase Kotlin is sponsored by JetBrains and Google through the Kotlin Foundation. If the sponsorship of Kotlin is administered through the Kotlin Foundation, then it is already implied that the purpose of that foundation is to protect, promote, and advance the development of Kotlin — for such is the logic of sponsorships in general.
• When ready to proceed with the requested clarifications mentioned above, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you!
  

Regards,  Spintendo  17:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment!

1. I agree on the fact that the term “primarily” is vague. Referring to the sentence mentioned at Kotlin website, it makes more sense to write without “primarily”.

2. Regarding the sponsorship, it is different from what you've understood in general. Please visit the website of Kotlin and see very bottom of the page. As it is stated “Sponsored and developed by JetBrains", the sponsorship of Kotlin is not through the Kotlin Foundation, only by JetBrains. The Kotlin Foundation is for protecting, promoting and advancing the development of Kotlin, but here it doesn’t imply any sponsorship.--JB2020M (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

References

The reviewing editor cannot review suggestions for addition to the article which are not placed on the talk page. Please propose the desired verbatim text here for review. If that clarification involves enhanced explanations, then those should be added to the proposed text (within reason) for the simple fact that readers may not be able to "visit the website of Kotlin and see very bottom of the page" in order to attain that understanding. Regards,  Spintendo  23:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Here is my suggestion.

• Current text: “Kotlin is sponsored by JetBrains and Google through the Kotlin Foundation.”
• Suggestion to replace the current text: Kotlin is sponsored and developed by JetBrains openly on GitHub. The Kotlin Foundation, which was created by JetBrains and Google, serves to protect, promote, and advance the development of Kotlin.JB2020M (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your clarification. Please elaborate on what it is, about the word sponsorship, which implies that protection, promotion, or advancement does not take place, so much so that those additional words need to be placed within the article for understanding to take place regarding this relationship. Regards,  Spintendo  17:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, here is more explanation about the word 'sponsorship'. The sponsorship of Kotlin refers to the cost of development of the language and the payment of the team developing it. This is implemented by JetBrains. The Foundation does not do this. The foundation merely acts to protect the trademark. JB2020M (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Now all that is needed is for you to fashion a claim statement which includes all of those facts, which I can then add to the article. Please note that the particulars which you've just mentioned should be integrated into the new proposed statement. Those elements were not included in your original proposal — specifically, the question of who pays for what. This is an important element which constitutes the meat of your edit request, so it needs to be included. The reference you've provided with the request need not be changed, as it confirms what you've just stated. When ready with the revised claim statement, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you!

Regards,  Spintendo  11:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Thank you for your help and explanation.

• Current text: “Kotlin is sponsored by JetBrains and Google through the Kotlin Foundation.”
• Suggestion to replace the current text: Kotlin is sponsored and developed by JetBrains openly on GitHub. The sponsorship of Kotlin refers to the cost of development of the language and the payment of the team developing it. The Kotlin Foundation, which was created by JetBrains and Google, serves to protect, promote, and advance the development of Kotlin. The Foundation is not involved in the sponsorship of Kortlin, but acts to protect the trademark. JB2020M (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 16-DEC-2019

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  20:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Data Class

The section on data classes contains false information. A data class can contain a body, properties not defined in the primary constructor, as well as functions. It is not like a struct in C. The data class adds `hashCode`, `equals`, `toString`, `componentx` functions automatically and I believe that is the main purpose. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mention `componentx` functions, but I did clarify that the key motivation for `data class` is auto-generating `equals`, `hashCode`, and `toString`. Lolinder (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Swift influence??

I don't often edit, so I wanted some feedback on this proposed change:

I'd like to remove the assertion that Kotlin was influenced by Swift - the timelines don't really line up (which is not definitive evidence against), and the site referenced in the original edit (http://nilhcem.com/swift-is-like-kotlin/ from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=939832300) does not provide any evidence nor a statement/assertion that the similarities are a result of one language's influence on the other. Given that Kotlin first appeared before Swift, and both languages have common ancestors in the C family of languages, it doesn't seem like this assertion has much backing (in the same way that if two siblings had similar aesthetic features, you'd likely attribute it to their common parents rather than saying that the younger sibling influenced the appearance of the older sibling).

I've also done some searching trying to find the Kotlin team listing Swift as an influence, and have found influences, but not containing Swift.

Is this sufficient to undo that good-faith edit?

Ploppity (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. At a surface level, the two languages use similar elements, and they also look similar (of course, under the hood, things work very differently, especially regarding APIs). They definitely appear to have influenced each other, although in Kotlin's case, Scala seems to be the more clear/dominant influence. Maybe wait a while so other editors can check this as well... TucanHolmes (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say that is certainly sufficient to undo the edit. You noted that the listed source for the assertion doesn't actually support the assertion; you then looked for other sources that would validate it and didn't find any. You did the due diligence. If someone finds such a source in the future the claim can then be readded, but it is currently just an unsourced claim and it doesn't need to be there. User:Ploppity's noting that "at a surface level, the two languages use similar elements, and they also look similar" etc is, respectfully, in effect "original research" for the purposes of WP:NOR and such observations are not valid support for an otherwise unsourced claim.

Edit request - update mascot pictures

The new redesigned mascot was announced this year. https://blog.jetbrains.com/kotlin/2023/04/the-kotlin-mascot-returns/ 109.245.202.213 (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm missing a pro/cons section

I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, so I don't know what the right terminology would be: Reception? Review? Benefits and Drawbacks? Snorkop (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

We can't do a pro/con-section on our own, that would be original research. We need reliable sources, at least several of them, to create something like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tech review blog, and unless there are specific and notable criticisms of Kotlin, no such section will be necessary.

We do have comparison pages, e.g. Comparison of C and Pascal, Comparison of C# and Java or Compatibility of C and C++, but these are plagued with issues, mainly those that I have mentioned above, and we need enough material (a large enough body of reliable sources) to create them. They need to be useful to the reader, and they need to exist for a reason, i.e. the topic, the underlying comparison, needs to be notable enough to warrant its own article. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

On data classes

@MrOllie: I disagree with the recent removal of some information about data classes from the article. Data classes are a core part of Kotlin's feature set, and have been inspired other languages, including Java with its records – so, definitely very notable. While I agree that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, I don't think that this justifies a near-complete removal, even with a low-quality source. In my opinion, a better course of action would have been to condense the explanation and tag the source as "[better source needed]" (copy editing, basically). TucanHolmes (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)