On the contrary, I feel that the stylistic [and sometimes semantic] separation of primitive and boxed types in languages (e.g., `byte` VS `Byte` in Java) improves the developer experience, in that I can very quickly dissect the type of value that I’m dealing with when reading the code.
In Java that difference matters a lot for performance: primitives are unboxed, objects are boxed. (Not as true now with auto boxing and escape analysis, but this was absolutely true in version 1.0.)
In C++ it can matter for correctness because primitives are uninitialized by default. But other types might be too and the standard library uses under_scores for things that are initialized on construction, so it's not a great example of this distinction.
Why do you care in other languages? In Rust for example I'm a little fuzzy on why I care if something is considered a primitive.
In this case it might be a 'documentation as code'thing, being able to see at a glance if something is a language primitive or a potentially very different implementation could have value.
However I'm not super familiar with Rust, so I couldn't speak to that why.
reply