> It has a very complicated type system, but doesn't even allow you to express things like function composition or generic sums at the language level.
Yeah, sure, it doesn't have Haskell's . or algebraic datatypes, just like lots of other languages. I'm not sure what's complicated about the Java type system, but I suspect you're trying to say you don't like subtyping. Moving on...
> Its syntax is stunningly verbose (e.g., no map literals; only now adding lambda literals; no type synonyms; no operator overloading).
No map literals, but Guava has leveraged generics in a brilliant way to reduce the duplicate declaration of types. Also, it brings a little bit of functional-style goodness with transform/filter. It turns even JDK 6 into something you can be productive with. I'm not sure the lack of type synonyms is really an issue, the type signatures are rarely complex enough that you need to obfuscate them. On the other hand, I'd give somebody else's right arm for an equivalent to newtype and deriving.
> There is no macro system or method_missing or any other way of really extending the language, except the ugly, unsafe reflection system ... so now all the libraries (Spring, Hibernate, etc.), use annotations and reflection to modify object behavior at runtime.
Not to forget proxy objects and interceptors. But yes, Java could definitely use a macro system.
But you're missing the elephant in the room, the existence of null. The bane of every Java programmer, dreading NPEs at each function call.