Let’s Get Lost in Types

I’m a Ruby coder, it’s the first language I fell in love with (although not the first language I learnt) and part of the reason I fell in love with Ruby is because I found it accessible. It reads really well and I found it super easy to understand. That’s great stuff for a beginner, but since then, I’ve come to love something else: Ruby is a dynamically typed language. Honestly, for a long time I didn’t even know what that meant, I just knew it to be true. Programming languages tend to fall into two camps, statically typed and dynamically typed.

Type: This refers to the kind of object. So an integer is a type of object, a string is a type of object, if you had car objects in your application, then a car would be a type of object.

Statically typed: These languages check the types that variables should contain and methods should return, at compile time, which means they need to be explicitly stated in the code. E.g. Java, C#, Go

Dynamically typed: These languages check types at run-time which means that the type doesn’t need to be explicitly stated, the program will compile and run regardless. E.g. Ruby, Python, JavaScript, PHP


It’s one thing to know the words and language but it’s a whole other thing to use and see it in practice. I didn’t realise the real difference until I began to learn Java. Moving from the fluidity of Ruby to the rigidity of Java has been a pain point. Let me explain.

Let’s say I want to write a method that searches for a contact in an address book when I give it the name of a contact. If the contact exists then I want to return the contact, if it doesn’t I want to put a message out to the user that says the contact doesn’t exist. I’d probably do something like

Ruby search_contacts method

Depending on which part of the condition is met, the method will either return a Contact or a String . This makes perfect sense in Ruby. This is the joy of a dynamically typed language, your method isn’t constrained by what kind of object it should return, sometimes you want to return different types in the same method.

Now, when I tried to do the same thing in Java, I got errors on errors on errors. Well, actually, only one error but still.

Wrong Java implementation of searchContact method

Java forces you to tell each method, in this case searchContact and each variable, name and result , what type it should return. So there, on the very first line, I’ve told it to return a Contact type but then I’ve said depending on which condition is met, return a Contact or a String. My program is confused, why will I give it the option of returning a String when I’ve already told it, it can only return a Contact? Don’t get me wrong, this also makes sense. I get it. However it took a minute to shift my mindset.

My next question was “but how do I tell the user that the contact doesn’t exist? Returning `null` isn’t helpful!”, this is what a friend had to say:

whatsapp conversation with friend telling me Java won't let me get away with what Ruby does

Jokes aside, it does spark a discussion about how to design your program and the assumptions each language allows you to make.


So how do I solve my original problem? Java is strict but it’s not unreasonable. Java really forces you to be intentional about your methods and variables. The best way I found to solve this issue was to keep the method small and contained and take care of one thing, that is, search for a contact.

The correct Java implementation of Search method

This method either returns a Contact or it returns null , that’s it. It will never return anything else and only does that one thing, it doesn’t care about communicating back to the user, and maybe it shouldn’t. Maybe somewhere else I can have an if null conditional that returns a message to the user. Where in Ruby I can make my method return different types and my variables are allowed to store different types, Java forces me to ask “why?”. Why do I want to make a method return more than one type, and is it appropriate?

Another way I could have solved this to return either a Contact or a String would have been to make the method return an Object. Just like Ruby, everything in Java inherits from the class Object and so everything is of type Object. Or instead of returning a String, in the else statement I could have printed out the message I wanted to be read by the user: System.out.println("This contact does not exist").


Thanks to TJ for proofreading this post, if you want to know about cool Android development things, definitely check out his profile.

Also thanks to Ashwin Maroli for correcting my typo in the ruby example.

This post first appeared on Medium.