Speaker 1: Have you ever looked at some new tech, maybe a
Speaker 1: programming language, and just thought, Okay, I need to understand this,
Speaker 1: but where do I even begin with all the info
Speaker 1: out there. Well, today we're cutting right through the noise.
Speaker 2: We are, indeed, we're taking a deep dive into Cotland.
Speaker 2: That's the language that's been making some serious waves, you know,
Speaker 2: especially since Google really embraced it for Android development.
Speaker 1: Right, the Google announcement was huge, and you've given us
Speaker 1: a fantastic guide to work from for this deep dive,
Speaker 1: the Ultimate Beginner's Guide to learn Cotland Programming step by
Speaker 1: step from twenty twenty. So our mission today is basically
Speaker 1: to pull out the core ideas from that guide, explain
Speaker 1: what makes Cotland well tick, why developers seem.
Speaker 2: To really like it, exactly, why they call it a
Speaker 2: breath of fresh air. We'll unpack its key features. Yeah,
Speaker 2: see how it stacks up against languages people might know,
Speaker 2: like a Java or Skala, and we'll even touch on
Speaker 2: how it's actually being used out there in the real world.
Speaker 1: So what does this all mean for you the listener,
Speaker 1: whether you're maybe thinking about picking up a new skill
Speaker 1: or just want to understand the tech landscape A bit better,
Speaker 1: or maybe you're just curious. Let's unpack this. Okay, let's
Speaker 1: kick things out with the basics. What is Cotland fundamentally.
Speaker 2: Well, it's not brand brand new. The one point oh
Speaker 2: release was back in February twenty sixteen. Okay, but yeah,
Speaker 2: the guide calls it the new love child of the
Speaker 2: JVM developers world, which is quite a statement, it really is.
Speaker 1: Suggests it's more than just another option.
Speaker 2: Definitely, and that breath of fresh air comment keeps coming up.
Speaker 2: People see it as a really good upgrade, especially if
Speaker 2: you're coming from say, older Java versions.
Speaker 1: So let's dig into that comparison with Java. What makes
Speaker 1: Cotland different? Why is it seen as better?
Speaker 2: The guide highlights two main things. It's much safer and
Speaker 2: more concise than Java.
Speaker 1: Safer and more concise. How so, Well, it.
Speaker 2: Adds features that directly address things Java developers have, let's say,
Speaker 2: grown to dislike over the years.
Speaker 1: Okay, Like, what give us some examples.
Speaker 2: Big one null safety built right into the time system
Speaker 2: to help prevent those dreaded null pointer exceptions.
Speaker 1: Ah, the billion dollar mistake.
Speaker 2: Right exactly. Then you have things like extension functions, adding
Speaker 2: functionality to existing classes without needing to inherit super handy. Also,
Speaker 2: data classes these massively cut down on boilerplate code.
Speaker 1: Boilerplate yeah, like getters, setters equals.
Speaker 2: Hash code precisely that. Plus it has better support for
Speaker 2: functional programming, first class functions, really expressive lambdas and improvements
Speaker 2: and type inference, the type system generally, and even the
Speaker 2: collections library feels more modern.
Speaker 1: Okay, that data class point sounds really interesting. Can you
Speaker 1: make that a bit more tangible? Like? How bad is
Speaker 1: it in Java versus Cotlin?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 2: In Java, if you want a simple class to just
Speaker 2: hold some data what they call a pojo plain old
Speaker 2: Java object, you end up writing, honestly, dozens of lines.
Speaker 2: You need fields, a constructor, getters for each field, setters
Speaker 2: maybe equals hash code sash string.
Speaker 1: Ough. Yeah, even with helper libraries like Lombac, it's still ceremony.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 2: Now compare that to colin. You can often achieve the
Speaker 2: exact same thing with a single line like this data
Speaker 2: class hexagon data class val x int val y int
Speaker 2: val z.
Speaker 1: Wow. Okay, that's it.
Speaker 2: That's it. That one line gives you the properties equals
Speaker 2: hash code two string, and even a useful copy function. Automatically.
Speaker 1: That is concise.
Speaker 2: Huge difference, massive, and it's not just data classes. Think
Speaker 2: about string formatting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Java's string dot format or just plus signing strings
Speaker 1: together can get messy, right.
Speaker 2: Colin has string templates or interpolation. It's much cleaner. You
Speaker 2: can just write something like fun to human readable format
Speaker 2: Java user name age age. See how the variables are
Speaker 2: right in the string.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's much clearer.
Speaker 2: And you can even put expressions or function calls inside
Speaker 2: fun to human readable format with method call Java user
Speaker 2: name dot capitalize.
Speaker 1: Oh nice, so you can call capitalize right there.
Speaker 2: Yep, super readable, super convenient.
Speaker 1: Okay, So it's clearly guided manages over Java inconciseness and
Speaker 1: some safey features. What about Scala You mentioned that earlier, right.
Speaker 2: Scala another JVM language also known for functional programming. Scala
Speaker 2: sometimes gets a reputation for being, as the guide puts it,
Speaker 2: intriguing and frightening.
Speaker 1: Frightening.
Speaker 2: Why, well, it dives deep into some pretty advanced functional concepts,
Speaker 2: higher kinded types, category theory stuff. It can have a
Speaker 2: steeper learning curve. Oh okay, and sometimes longer compile times
Speaker 2: have been a factor historically.
Speaker 1: So how does Cotland compare. Is it just as complex?
Speaker 2: That's the interesting part. The guide says Cotland is similar,
Speaker 2: but only slightly similar in every aspecting it means. Cotland
Speaker 2: gives you powerful functional features, maps, filters, folds, lambdas, but
Speaker 2: generally without the really complex abstract stuff from Scala. If
Speaker 2: you're a Java dev who's used Java eight streams and lambdas,
Speaker 2: you'll feel pretty comfortable with Cotland's functional side.
Speaker 1: So it's like functional programming made more approachable.
Speaker 2: That's a good way to put it. More pragmate, perhaps
Speaker 2: less academic.
Speaker 1: And what about fitting in with existing Java projects? Is
Speaker 1: it all or nothing?
Speaker 2: Not at all? That's a huge selling point. Cotland is
Speaker 2: one hundred percent compatible with Java, one hundred percent runs
Speaker 2: on the JVM, compiles to Java byte code. You can
Speaker 2: call Java code from Cotland and Cotland code from Java seamlessly.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 2: Okay, So you can introduce it gradually exactly, You can
Speaker 2: start using it in parts of your existing Java application.
Speaker 2: It matches well with existing Java code, As the guide says,
Speaker 2: you get to keep using the whole Java ecosystem, libraries, frameworks.
Speaker 1: Tools, and you mentioned it can even compile the JavaScript.
Speaker 2: It can, which opens up possibilities for sharing code between
Speaker 2: your back end and front end, potentially programming both in Cotland.
Speaker 1: That's pretty compelling. So summarizing the why, it seems Cotlan
Speaker 1: aims to fix Java's pain points, offers approachable functional programming,
Speaker 1: and works perfectly with Java pretty much.
Speaker 2: The guide says it solves many problems in Java, but
Speaker 2: adds only a thin layer of complexity.
Speaker 1: And speaking for you, the listener, why should you care?
Speaker 2: Well? The source puts it bluntly. It helps you pay
Speaker 2: bills and is so easy to use.
Speaker 1: Huh. Okay, maybe a bit simplistic, but the point is clear.
Speaker 1: Developer productivity, fewer errors, faster development that translates to.
Speaker 2: Value absolutely less frustration, more getting things done.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's shift gears slightly and dig into some of
Speaker 1: Colin's core features. How does it handle basic things like
Speaker 1: data types and control flow?
Speaker 2: Right? The fundamentals. Even here there are some neat twists
Speaker 2: like what well? First off, in Cotlin, pretty much every
Speaker 2: element is an object.
Speaker 1: Everything's an object, even basic numbers.
Speaker 2: Yep means you can call member functions and properties on
Speaker 2: any variable which has a nice consistency.
Speaker 1: Interesting, What about numbers specifically, or are they like Java's
Speaker 1: int float, et cetera similar.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you have INNT double float bite and so on,
Speaker 2: But there's a key difference in conversions. Coughlin doesn't do
Speaker 2: implicit widening conversions, so you can't just assign a byte
Speaker 2: value to an int variable directly.
Speaker 1: So in my byte like in Java wouldn't work correct.
Speaker 2: You have to explicitly say my byte dot tarrant. It
Speaker 2: forces you to be clear about the conversion.
Speaker 1: Makes sense, prevents accidental data loss or unexpected behavior exactly.
Speaker 2: Oh. And a small but nice feature for readability, you
Speaker 2: can use underscores in number literals. Underscore Yeah, like wall
Speaker 2: one million equals one hundred thousand zero makes large numbers
Speaker 2: way easier to read.
Speaker 1: That is neat. Okay, what about strings?
Speaker 2: Strings are immutable like in Java, you can iterate through
Speaker 2: the characters easily using a for loop for c and strings.
Speaker 2: A cool feature is raw text.
Speaker 1: Strings Raw texts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you use triple quotes do inside these you can
Speaker 2: have new lines and special characters without needing escape sequences
Speaker 2: like n oh.
Speaker 1: That's useful for embedding like JSON or sequel.
Speaker 2: Snippets precisely, And you can use a function called trim
Speaker 2: margin to nicely format, multiline raw strings, removing leading white space.
Speaker 1: Andy, and you mentioned string templates earlier.
Speaker 2: Right, The name or expression syntax for embedding values directly
Speaker 2: into strings. Very convenient.
Speaker 1: Okay, Let's talk control flow if for a while. Any
Speaker 1: surprises there.
Speaker 2: The if statement is quite interesting. In Cotland. If is an.
Speaker 1: Expression an expression meaning it returns a.
Speaker 2: Value exactly, So you don't need a separate ternery operator
Speaker 2: like condition dot value t dot value of false. You
Speaker 2: can just write vale result if condition some value else
Speaker 2: another value. Ah. Okay, so the result of the if
Speaker 2: block gets assigned directly. Cleaner, much cleaner. Then there's when.
Speaker 1: When is that?
Speaker 2: Like switch and Java, it's Cotland's much more powerful alternative
Speaker 2: to Swiss shadow. It's super flexible. You can match against
Speaker 2: specific values, multiple values zero, one point zero ranges and
Speaker 2: one point sero check types is string, or even use
Speaker 2: arbitrary expressions as conditions.
Speaker 1: Wow, sounds way more versatile than switch.
Speaker 2: It really is, And just like if, when can also
Speaker 2: be used as an expression that returns a value.
Speaker 1: Nice. What about loops for loops?
Speaker 2: Standard for item in collection works as you'd expect for
Speaker 2: looping over arrays or lists where you need the index
Speaker 2: You can use a rate out indices which gives you
Speaker 2: a range of indices, or even better, a rate out
Speaker 2: with index, which gives you pairs of index value in
Speaker 2: each iteration. Very convenient.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Avoids manual index tracking and while loops while one
Speaker 1: do while it are pretty much standard, similar to how
Speaker 1: they work in Java or other SE style languages. No
Speaker 1: big surprises there. Okay, so far Cotland seems focused on
Speaker 1: conciseness and adding practical improvements to familiar concepts. Let's move
Speaker 1: up a level to how programs are structured classes.
Speaker 2: Objects, right, the building block.
Speaker 1: How do you define a class? Still class? Yep.
Speaker 2: Declaring a class is simple class invoice, but creating an
Speaker 2: instance is different.
Speaker 1: Also, no new keyword.
Speaker 2: You just call the constructor like a regular function veil invoice, invoice.
Speaker 1: Uh, simpler. What about constructors.
Speaker 2: Potland has a concept of a primary constructor, which is
Speaker 2: part of the class head itself, and you can also
Speaker 2: have secondary constructors declared with the constructor keyword inside the
Speaker 2: class body. Any initialization code that needs to run for
Speaker 2: the primary constructor goes into in it blocks.
Speaker 1: And you mentioned earlier that property declaration can be very concise.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this ties into the primary constructor, You can declare
Speaker 2: properties and initialize them directly in the primary constructor's signature,
Speaker 2: like class person full first name string, VOWL, last name string, var,
Speaker 2: age int that declares three properties first name, last name, age,
Speaker 2: and the primary constructor takes arguments to initialize them. Vall
Speaker 2: means read only, var means mutable.
Speaker 1: Again, very concise compared to Java's constructor boiler plate definitely.
Speaker 1: What about inheritance, Can any class be extended?
Speaker 2: Nope? By default Cotland classes are.
Speaker 1: Final final, meaning they cannot be inherited from correct.
Speaker 2: If you want a class to be inheritable, you have
Speaker 2: to explicitly market with the open keyword.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's opt in inheritance exactly.
Speaker 2: Sam goes for methods or properties you want over rune,
Speaker 2: the method in the base class must be marked open,
Speaker 2: and the overwriting method in the derived class must be
Speaker 2: marked override.
Speaker 1: So it's very explicit. You have to declare your intention
Speaker 1: to allow extension or overwriting. Right.
Speaker 2: It avoids accidental inheritance or overwriting and makes APIs clearer.
Speaker 1: What about static methods like utility functions associated with a
Speaker 1: class but not an instance. Java uses static Colin.
Speaker 2: Doesn't have a static keyword in the same way. For
Speaker 2: functions that don't need class instance access, you can just
Speaker 2: define them at the top level of a file outside
Speaker 2: any class package level functions. Okay, but if you want
Speaker 2: functions or properties tied conceptually to a class, like factory,
Speaker 2: methods or constants, you use a companion.
Speaker 1: Object companion object.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's an object declared inside a class with the
Speaker 2: companion keyword. You can then call its members using the
Speaker 2: class name directly like my class dot create, similar to
Speaker 2: how you'd call a static method in Java.
Speaker 1: So it serves a similar purpose to static it.
Speaker 2: Does, but it's actually a real object at runtime, meaning
Speaker 2: the companion object itself can implement interfaces or have extension functions,
Speaker 2: which is more powerful than Java static members.
Speaker 1: Interesting distinction. Let's talk more about properties val and var right.
Speaker 2: Val for read only like Java final fields, var, forer
Speaker 2: mutable pretty straightforward.
Speaker 1: Can you customize how they work like custom getters or setters?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. You can define custom get and set logic right
Speaker 2: after the property declaration. For example, val is empty oulian
Speaker 2: get this dot size equals hour zero. This defines a
Speaker 2: read only is empty property whose value is calculated by
Speaker 2: the getter each time it's accessed.
Speaker 1: Got it. What about properties that can't be initialized immediately
Speaker 1: in the constructor maybe they're set up by a dependency
Speaker 1: injection framework later.
Speaker 2: Ah, good question for that. Cotlin has the latin it
Speaker 2: modifier latina. Yeah. You mark a var property with a
Speaker 2: Latin it tells the compiler trust me, this non null
Speaker 2: property will be initialized before I try to use it.
Speaker 2: This lets you avoid initializing it to null just to
Speaker 2: satisfy the compiler, and then you don't need null checks
Speaker 2: everywhere later.
Speaker 1: Okay, that handles a common scenario nicely. Now the guide
Speaker 1: mentions something called delegated properties. That sounds advanced.
Speaker 2: It's a really powerful concept, actually, maybe one of Cotland's
Speaker 2: killer features. The idea is you can delegate the getter
Speaker 2: and setter logic of a property to another object.
Speaker 1: A delegate delegate the largic.
Speaker 2: Why it lets you reuse common property behaviors without writing
Speaker 2: boilerplate code over and over. The guide says, you can
Speaker 2: define the use of properties manually over and over again,
Speaker 2: but then store this definition in the library for use
Speaker 2: whenever needed.
Speaker 1: Okay, like what kind of behaviors?
Speaker 2: Common examples built into the standard library include lazy properties
Speaker 2: lazy yeah, The value of a lazy property is computed
Speaker 2: only the first time you access it, and then the
Speaker 2: result is cased. Great for expensive initializations you might not
Speaker 2: always need.
Speaker 1: I see performance optimization exactly.
Speaker 2: Another one is observable properties. You provide a handler function
Speaker 2: that gets called every time the property value changes.
Speaker 1: Useful for like updating UI or logging changes.
Speaker 2: Perfect for that. You can even delegate properties to store
Speaker 2: their values in a map.
Speaker 1: Wow. So it's a way to abstract common property patterns
Speaker 1: into reusable delegates.
Speaker 2: Precisely, it cleans up codes significantly by handling things like
Speaker 2: lazy loading, observation, or even mapping properties to external data
Speaker 2: sources in a standard way.
Speaker 1: That sounds incredibly useful. Okay, let's zoom out again. We've
Speaker 1: covered syntax and core features. How does this all come
Speaker 1: together the broader developer experience? How is cotlin actually used well?
Speaker 2: Besides Android, it's making huge strides in server side development.
Speaker 1: Server side, with Java being so dominant that yep, Colin.
Speaker 2: Is seen as a powerful tool for servers. It brings
Speaker 2: that expressiveness and safety we talked about. Plus, it has
Speaker 2: excellent support for concurrency with coroutines, which are very lightweight
Speaker 2: compared to traditional threads leading to better scalability core to
Speaker 2: teams right heard about those, And crucially that Java Interopera
Speaker 2: means you can adopt it gradually in existing Java server applications.
Speaker 2: It supports a step by step transition.
Speaker 1: Are major framework supporting it like Spring?
Speaker 2: Absolutely? Spring has first class Coughtland support dot x two
Speaker 2: And there are Cotland native frameworks like Creator developed by
Speaker 2: jet Brains themselves.
Speaker 1: And are there big real world examples?
Speaker 2: The guide mentions a couple of fascinating ones. The corna
Speaker 2: platform that's an open distributed ledger platform used by major
Speaker 2: banks for financial records, is built entirely in Cotlin entirely
Speaker 2: wow Yeah, And jet Brain's own licensing system. Jet Brain's
Speaker 2: account has apparently been running on Cotland since twenty fifteen
Speaker 2: without major problems, so it's battle tested.
Speaker 1: That's strong evidence of its maturity for server use. Okay,
Speaker 1: beyond the language itself, what about conventions, style, guides, best practices.
Speaker 2: Cotland generally follows established Java conventions for naming things, packages, classes, functions, properties, so.
Speaker 1: Camel case for functions and variables, Pascal case.
Speaker 2: For classes exactly. Constants tend to be all caps with underscores.
Speaker 1: Pretty standard stuff, formatting tabs or spaces brace style.
Speaker 2: The official recommendation is four spaces for indentation. Brace style
Speaker 2: is similar to Java opening brace at the end of
Speaker 2: the line, closing brace on its own line, and a
Speaker 2: small but lovely detail. The guide points out semi collins
Speaker 2: at the end of lines are.
Speaker 1: Optional, optional semicolons. That's always a crowd pleaser, isn't it?
Speaker 2: Just it cleans things up visually?
Speaker 1: What about recommended coding patterns? Does the call in community
Speaker 1: push certain styles?
Speaker 2: Definitely? A big one is immutability.
Speaker 1: Using val over var.
Speaker 2: Yes, strongly encouraged. It is preferable to use static data
Speaker 2: on the variable. The guide says favor val. Use immutable
Speaker 2: collection interfaces list set map rather than mutable list, et
Speaker 2: cetera whenever you.
Speaker 1: Can why the emphasis makes.
Speaker 2: Code easier to reason about, less prone to bugs caused
Speaker 2: by unexpected state changes, especially in concurrent scenarios.
Speaker 1: Makes sense any other key patterns.
Speaker 2: Default parameter values are heavily used. Instead of writing multiple
Speaker 2: overloaded functions, you just define default values for parameters in
Speaker 2: a single function declaration leads to much cleaner APIs.
Speaker 1: Right, avoids that explosion of method signatures thick exactly.
Speaker 2: Also destructuring declarations. Destructuring was that it's a concise way
Speaker 2: to unpack an object into multiple variables. Remember the data
Speaker 2: class person, vowel, name, string, vowel age into Yeah, you
Speaker 2: can write vowelname, age, person instance. Cotlan automatically calls generated
Speaker 2: component one and component two functions to extract the values
Speaker 2: into name and age variable.
Speaker 1: Oh, needs you know to vowel name person dot name vowelage,
Speaker 1: person dot age.
Speaker 2: Correct. It's super useful when functions return multiple values, often
Speaker 2: via a data class or pair, or when iterating over maps.
Speaker 1: How does it work with maps?
Speaker 2: You can loop like this for key value in my map.
Speaker 1: Very elegant.
Speaker 2: That is elegant. Also, ranges are used a lot for loops,
Speaker 2: using until for exclusive ranges for i and zero, intel
Speaker 2: size comments size, and you have down to and step
Speaker 2: for more control.
Speaker 1: Okay, what about those smart casts mentioned in the guide? Ah?
Speaker 2: Yes, smart casts are great. Basically, if you perform a
Speaker 2: type check like if X is string, the compiler is
Speaker 2: smart enough to automatically treat X as a string inside that.
Speaker 1: Block, so you don't need to explicitly cast it again.
Speaker 2: Often no, the compiler automatically converts and securely when needed
Speaker 2: within that scope, reduces casting.
Speaker 1: Clutter, and finally, exceptions. Java has checked exceptions, which can
Speaker 1: be controversial. How does Cotlin handle them?
Speaker 2: Cotland gets rid of them entirely. It does not support
Speaker 2: checked exceptions.
Speaker 1: No checked exceptions at all.
Speaker 2: Nope, it's a deliberate design choice. The thinking is that
Speaker 2: forcing tricatch blocks for checked exceptions often leads to boilerplate
Speaker 2: code that doesn't actually handle the error meaningfully, reducing productivity.
Speaker 1: So all exceptions are effectively unchecked like runtime exceptions in Java.
Speaker 2: Pretty much. Yes, it puts the onus on the developer
Speaker 2: to decide when and how to handle potential exceptions rather
Speaker 2: than forcing it through the type system.
Speaker 1: Interesting, definitely different philosophy. Okay, so wrapping things that we've
Speaker 1: gone through quite a journey here from Cotland's core philosophy
Speaker 1: compared to Java and Scala.
Speaker 2: Yeah, focusing on that conciseness, safety, and interoperability.
Speaker 1: To its specific features like data classes, null safety, when expressions,
Speaker 1: companion objects, delegated properties.
Speaker 2: And the powerful conventions like immutability, default parameters, and smart casts.
Speaker 1: It really feels like a language designed with developer productivity
Speaker 1: and dare I say happiness in mind, I.
Speaker 2: Think that's fair. It addresses many common frustrations and provides
Speaker 2: elegant solutions while staying practical and interoperable.
Speaker 1: So for you listening, you should now have a much
Speaker 1: clearer picture of what Cotland is, why it's gained so
Speaker 1: much traction, and the kind of problems it solves.
Speaker 2: Ejectively, you've got a solid grasp of what makes it
Speaker 2: well that breath of fresh air. For many developers, it's pragmatism,
Speaker 2: it's clever features, and its strong ecosystem for building various
Speaker 2: kinds of app iplations.
Speaker 1: You know, this whole deep dive into Cotlan, seeing how
Speaker 1: a tackled complexity and aimed for developer joy, it makes
Speaker 1: you wonder, considering how much digital technology relies on complex systems,
Speaker 1: what other areas could really benefit from a similar breath
Speaker 1: of fresh air approach. Where else could we simplify things
Speaker 1: and prioritize the actual user or developer experience over legacy
Speaker 1: or perceived complexity.
Speaker 2: Hmm, that's a great question, something for you to mul
Speaker 2: over until our next deep dive