• Aloso@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    No it's not, it is 100% a unit type (except it's not really a type, since you can only use it as return type and nowhere else)

    • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It's not possible to instantiate or assign, which is more like a never type than a unit; and it is not possible to define new types with the same properties, which is also more like bottom than unit. But you're right that it's not actually a true never type since it can't represent function divergence.

      I think the truth is just that Java's type system isn't very mathematically disciplined.

      • Aloso@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It's not possible to instantiate or assign, which is more like a never type than a unit

        Actually, this is because void is not a type, it is just a keyword, a placeholder used instead of the return type when a function doesn't return anything.

        If it were a bottom type, that would mean that a method returning void must diverge, which is simply not true.

        Also, if it were a bottom type, it would be possible to write an "unreachable" method

        void unreachable(void bottom) {
            return bottom;
        }
        

        Even though it couldn't be called, it should be possible to define it, if void was a bottom type. But it is not, because void isn't a bottom type, it's no type at all.

        • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The post has been edited; it looks like someone on reddit made essentially the same point. You're right of course that void isn't a true type in Java, but the post now also discusses Void, which I suppose just shows how void infects the type system despite not being a type.