What are the bad practices being promoted by this? How does it qualify as dumbed down? Simply ranting about things that, charitably, you don't seem to understand, does not make the rants valid.
As the sibling comment indicates, and I wish to amplify with precision, if you are using the static constructor reference to initialize the local, declaring the local reference to be of a super type is cargo cult nonsense, not a best practice. The concrete type is already locally known, nothing is gained via the abstraction.
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.
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.
