A modern programming language that makes developers happier.

kotlinlang

Can't `Instant` be named `Timestamp`? The former is so... scientific. Not easy to grasp, esp. for a general purpose programming language.

I personally think Instant is better. Timestamp, to me, specifically describes a string with time information. I'm curious what others think about this, though.

I debated calling an `Instant` a `Timestamp` in Island Time and using the name `Instant` for an interface that's also shared by `ZonedDateTime` and `OffsetDateTime`. In reality, all three classes describe an instant in time, but in different ways. The purpose of `Instant` is as a timestamp, so I think there's an argument for it. I left it as `Instant` largely because people are familiar with it in java.time.

Yeah, I think the fact that a timestamp *describes an instant* is a pretty good argument in favor of calling it Instant.

An instant is a concept and a timestamp is an implementation of that concept. But `Instant` is implemented as a timestamp relative to the Unix epoch, so I think you can definitely argue that just calling it a "timestamp" makes it more clear exactly what is -- if you ignore the precedent set by Joda, java.time, and all the derivative libraries out there anyway.