Comment by speed_spread 3 days ago
It's called type inference and it's the way things should be. You get the same types but you don't have to spell them out everywhere. Java doesn't even go all the way, check OCaml to see full program inference.
Annotations would be a substitute for writing the return type. Extra code for a shortcut seems like the worst solution.
I don't mean Java annotations, those would be too clunky - in OCaml a type annotation is really just adding `: <typename>` to variables, function return types, etc.
so fibonacci could look like this
```
let rec fib n =
match n with
| 0 -> 1
| 1 -> 1
| _ -> fib (n - 1) + fib (n - 2)
or with annotations it becomes this:
```
let rec fib (n: int): int =
// Same as above :)
OCaml's type inference is truly amazing, makes it such a delight to write statically typed code - reading it on the other hand...
But I think that's easily solved by adding type annotations for the return type of methods - annotating almost anything else is mostly just clutter imo.