So stop using constructors and start using static factory methods. The return type of a static factory method can be the interface type.

Yeah, let's UML the hell out of everything to be enterprisey and be Martin Fowler-approved! This is what turned off a lot of people before!

Sorry, did "static factory" sound scary? How about "use a function to create your objects" instead?

So instead of doing this:

    Foo foo = new Foo("bar");

You can do this:

    Foo foo = Foo.of("bar");

Yeah, but how about the implementation?

This is complete nonsense if you're using a static constructor and not a factory. There's zero point to doing this for a local, statically constructed type. It's not a best practice.

If you were using a factory, var would infer the factory signature's type, which would normally be the interface.

No, it's not a complete nonsense, no. People abusing Java with overengineering and using factories and other enterprisey design patterns for everything made a lot of people leave the Java land!

> People abusing Java with overengineering and using factories and other enterprisey design patterns for everything made a lot of people leave the Java land!

Actually, people left Java land because they couldn't express what they needed to without using complicated design patterns.

A "static factory" is just a static method. You know, a function. Nothing over-engineered or enterprisey about using functions to allocate objects.

Why state the obvious?

> Why state the obvious?

So you think using functions is enterprisey and over-engineering things?

Read my other reply to you on the subject! The API might be a small syntactic change, but the concepts and the implementation behind those for noobs are not. They learn OOP and constructors and then you tell them - they suck, use factories via static methods.

Yes, but that's a fault in Java the language. Keeping Java bad doesn't solve that problem.

I agree. A little native support for wide-spread best practices would only be a good thing for Java.