The joke is even funnier on my client
You’re using Java, there’s your problem
This syntax isn’t actually a problem by itself. Go does this too (no operator overloading)
In Go you can compare structure instances with == (by value). You can also compare pointers (in which case they can be different even if values are equal). You get what you ask for.
Also, I’ve never needed “Equals” method in Go.
I think you can also == two structs in Java, but not classes.
Is there ever an instance when you do want to compare object identity instead of “equal”-ness? I find this behaviour just confusing for beginners and not useful for experts.
Is there ever an instance when you do want to compare object identity instead of “equal”-ness?
Maybe if you have to check if the object is one you already hold a lock for or account for some similar consequence of questionable architecture.
Not to take away from your very good point, but I think the word you might be looking for is “eqivalence”.
99.99% of the time you want to compare by value, which is why languages defaulting to comparing by reference is a stupid default.
There are use cases. Like containers where the pointer to the object itself is the key (for example a set). But they are niche and should be implemented by the standard library anyway. One of the things I hate most about Java is .equals() on strings. 99.999% of times you compare strings, you want to compare the contents, yet there is a reserved operator to do the wrong comparison.
Java has the hash interface for using in containers. You don’t need to override equality for it.
Where’s the original post?
No longer on the internet, due to the OP’s instance is now defunct.
It was probably on AWS
