Help me with the Spiderman Operator

From time to time, I encounter a silly syntax in Java that I silently dubbed the “spiderman operator” because of all the syntactically pointing that’s going on. My problem is that it’s not very readable, I don’t know an alternative syntax for it and my programming style leads me more often to it than I am willing to ignore.

The spiderman operator looks like this:

x -> () -> x

In its raw form, it means that you have a function that takes x and returns a Supplier of x:

Function<X, Supplier<X>> rawForm = x -> () -> x;

That in itself is not very useful or mysterious, but if you take into account that the Supplier<X> is just one possible type you can return, because in Java, as long as the signature fits, the thing sits, it gets funnier.

A possible use case

Let’s define a type that is an interface with just one method:

public interface DomainValue {
    BigDecimal value();

In Java, the @FunctionalInterface annotation is not required to let the interface be, in fact, a functional interface. It only needs to have one method without implementation. How can we provide methods with implementation in Java interfaces. Default methods are the way:

public interface DomainValue {
    BigDecimal value();

    default String denotation() {
        return getClass().getSimpleName();

Let’s say that we want to load domain values from a key-value-store with the following access method:

Optional<Double> loadEntry(String key)

If there is no entry with the given key or the syntax is not suitable to be interpreted as a double, the method returns Optional.emtpy(). Else it returns the double value wrapped in an Optional shell. We can convert it to our domain value like this:

Optional<DomainValue> myValue = 
        .map(x -> () -> x);

And there it is, the spiderman operator. We convert from Double to BigDecimal and then to DomainValue by saying that we want to convert our BigDecimal to “something that can supply a BigDecimal”, which is exactly what our DomainValue can do.

A bigger use case

Right now, the DomainValue type is nothing more than a mantle around a numerical value. But we can expand our domain to have more specific types:

public interface Voltage extends DomainValue {
public interface Power extends DomainValue {
    default String denotation() {
        return "Electric power";


public interface Current extends DomainValue {
    default Power with(Voltage voltage) {
	return () -> value().multiply(voltage.value());

Ok, this is maybe no longer boring. We can implement a lot of domain functionality just in interfaces and then instantiate ad-hoc types:

Voltage europeanVoltage = () -> BigDecimal.valueOf(220);
Current powerSupply = () -> BigDecimal.valueOf(2);
Power usage = powerSupply.with(europeanVoltage);

Or we load the values from our key-value-store:

Optional<Voltage> maybeVoltage = 
        .map(x -> () -> x);

Optional<Current> maybeCurrent = 
        .map(x -> () -> x);

You probably see it already: We have some duplicated code! The strange thing is, it won’t go away so easily.

The first call for help

But first I want to sanitize the code syntactically. The duplication is bad, but the spiderman operator is just unreadable.

If you have an idea how the syntax of the second map() call can be improved, please comment below! Just one request: Make sure your idea compiles beforehands.

Failing to eliminate the duplication

There is nothing easier than eliminating the duplication above: The code is syntactically identical and only the string parameter is different – well, and the return type. We will see how this affects us.

What we cannot do:

<DV extends DomainValue> Optional<DV> loadFor(String entry) {
    Optional<BigDecimal> maybeValue = load(entry);
    return -> () -> x);

Suddenly, the spiderman operator does not compile with the error message:

The target type of this expression must be a functional interface

I can see the problem: Subtypes of DomainValue are not required to stay compatible to the functional interface requirement (just one method without implementation).

Interestingly, if we work with a wildcard for the generic, it compiles:

Optional<? extends DomainValue> loadFor(String entry) {
    Optional<BigDecimal> maybeValue = load(entry);
    return -> () -> x);

The problem is that we still need to downcast to our specific subtype afterwards. But we can use this insight and move the downcast into the method:

<DV extends DomainValue> Optional<DV> loadFor(
	String entry,
	Class<DV> type
) {
	Optional<BigDecimal> maybeValue = load(entry);
	return -> type.cast(x));

Which makes our code readable enough, but at the price of using reflection:

Optional<Voltage> european = loadFor("voltage", Voltage.class);
Optional<Current> powerSupply = loadFor("current", Current.class);

I’m not a fan of this solution, because downcasts are dangerous and reflection is dangerous, too. Mixing two dangerous things doesn’t neutralize the danger most of the time. This code will fail during runtime sooner or later, without any compiler warning us about it. If you don’t believe me, add a second method without implementation to the Current interface and see if the compiler warns you. Hint: This is what you will see at runtime:

java.lang.ClassCastException: Cannot cast java.math.BigDecimal to Current

But, to our surprise, it doesn’t even need a second method. The code above doesn’t work. Even if we reintroduce our spiderman operator (with an additional assignment to help the type inference), the cast won’t work:

<DV extends DomainValue> Optional<DV> loadFor(
    String entry,
    Class<DV> type
) {
    Optional<BigDecimal> maybeValue = load(entry);
    Optional<DomainValue> maybeDomainValue = -> () -> x);
    return -> type.cast(x));

The ClassCastException just got a lot more mysterious:

java.lang.ClassCastException: Cannot cast Loader$$Lambda$8/0x00000008000028c0 to Current

My problem is that I am stuck. There is working code that uses the spiderman operator and produces code duplication, but there is no way around the duplication that I can think of. I can get objects for the supertype (DomainValue), but not for a specific subtype of it. If I want that, I have to accept duplication. Or am I missing something?

The second call for help

If you can think about a way to eliminate the duplication, please tell me (or us) in the comments. This problem doesn’t need to be solved for my peace of mind or the sanity of my code – the duplication is confined to a particular place.

Being used to roam nearly without boundaries in the Java syntax (25 years of thinking in Java will do that to you), this particular limitation hit hard. If you can give me some ideas, I would be grateful.

Declaration-site and use-site variance explained

A common question posed by programming novices who have their first encounters with parametrized types (“generics” in Java and C#) is “Why can’t I use a List<Apple> as a List<Fruit>?” (given that Apple is a subclass of Fruit) Their reasoning usually goes like this: “An apple is a fruit, so a basket of apples is a fruit basket, right?”

Here’s another, similar, example:

Milk is a dairy product, but is a bottle of milk a dairy product bottle? Try putting a Cheddar cheese wheel into the milk bottle (without melting or shredding the cheese!). It’s obviously not that simple.

Let’s assume for a moment that it was possible to use a List<Apple> as a List<Fruit>. Then the following code would be legal, given that Orange is a subclass of Fruit as well:

List<Apple> apples = new ArrayList<>();
List<Fruit> fruits = apples;
fruits.add(new Orange());

// what's an orange doing here?!
Apple apple = apples.get(0);

This short code example demonstrates why it doesn’t make sense to treat a List<Apple> as a List<Fruit>. That’s why generic types in Java and C# don’t allow this kind of assignment by default. This behaviour is called invariance.

Variance of generic types

There are, however, other cases of generic types where assignments like this actually could make sense. For example, using an Iterable<Apple> as an Iterable<Fruit> is a reasonable wish. The opposite direction within the inheritance hierarchy of the type parameter is thinkable as well, e.g. using a Comparable<Fruit> as a Comparable<Apple>.

So what’s the difference between these generic types: List<T>, Iterable<T>, Comparable<T>? The difference is the “flow” direction of objects of type T in their interface:

  1. If a generic interface has only methods that return objects of type T, but don’t consume objects of type T, then assignment from a variable of Type<B> to a variable of Type<A> can make sense. This is called covariance. Examples are: Iterable<T>, Iterator<T>, Supplier<T>inheritance
  2. If a generic interface has only methods that consume objects of type T, but don’t return objects of type T, then assignment from a variable of Type<A> to a variable of Type<B> can make sense. This is called contravariance. Examples are: Comparable<T>, Consumer<T>
  3. If a generic interface has both methods that return and methods that consume objects of type T then it should be invariant. Examples are: List<T>, Set<T>

As mentioned before, neither Java nor C# allow covariance or contravariance for generic types by default. They’re invariant by default. But there are ways and means in both languages to achieve co- and contravariance.

Declaration-site variance

In C# you can use the in and out keywords on a type parameter to indicate variance:

interface IProducer<out T> // Covariant
    T produce();

interface IConsumer<in T> // Contravariant
    void consume(T t);

IProducer<B> producerOfB = /*...*/;
IProducer<A> producerOfA = producerOfB;  // now legal
// producerOfB = producerOfA;  // still illegal

IConsumer<A> consumerOfA = /*...*/;
IConsumer<B> consumerOfB = consumerOfA;  // now legal
// consumerOfA = consumerOfB;  // still illegal

This annotation style is called declaration-site variance, because the type parameter is annotated where the generic type is declared.

Use-site variance

In Java you can express co- and contravariance with wildcards like <? extends A> and <? super B>.

Producer<B> producerOfB = /*...*/;
Producer<? extends A> producerOfA = producerOfB; // legal
A a = producerOfA.produce();
// producerOfB = producerOfA; // still illegal

Consumer<A> consumerOfA = /*...*/;
Consumer<? super B> consumerOfB = consumerOfA; // legal
consumerOfB.consume(new B());
// consumerOfA = consumerOfB; // still illegal

This is called use-site variance, because the annotation is not placed where the type is declared, but where the type is used.


The variance behaviour of Java and C# arrays is different from the variance behaviour of their generics. Arrays are covariant, not invariant, even though a T[] has the same problem as a List<T> would have if it was covariant:

Apple[] apples = new Apple[10];
Fruit[] fruits = apples;
fruits[0] = new Orange();
Apple apple = apples[0];

Unfortunately, this code compiles in both languages. However, it throws an exception at runtime (ArrayStoreException or ArrayTypeMismatchException, respectively) in line 3.

Java Generics: the Klingonian Cast

Struck by Java generic’s odd type erasure behaviour again? You can circumvent the missing upcast feature by using the Klingonian Cast.


Ever since Generics were included in Java, they’ve been a great help and source of despair at once. One thing that most newcomers will stumble upon sooner or later is “Type Erasure” and its effects. You may read about it in the Java Tutorial and never quite understand it, until you encounter it in the wild (in your code) and it just laughs at your carefully crafted type system construct. This is the time when you venture into the deep end of the Java language specification and aren’t seen for days or weeks. And when you finally reappear, you are a broken man – or a strong warrior, even stronger than before, charged with the wisdom of the ancients.

The problem

If my introduction was too mystic for your taste – bear with me. The rest of this blog post is rather technical and bleak. It won’t go into the nitty-gritty details of Java generics or type erasure, but describe a real-world problem and one possible solution. The problem can be described by a few lines of code:

List<Integer> integers = new ArrayList<Integer>();
Iterable<Integer> iterable = integers;
Iterable<Number> numbers = integers; // Damn!

The last line won’t compile. Let’s examine it step by step:

  • We create a list of Integers
  • The list can be (up-)casted into an Iterable of Integers. Lists are/behave like Iterables.
  • But the list cannot be casted into an Iterable of Number, even though Integers are/behave like Numbers.

The compiler error message isn’t particularly helpful here:

Type mismatch: cannot convert from List<Integer> to Iterable<Number>

This is when we remember one thing about Java Generics: They aren’t exactly variant. While they have “use-site variance”, we are in need of “declaration-site variance” here, which Java Generics lack entirely. Don’t despair, this was all the theoretical discussion about the topic for today. If you want to know more, just ask in the comment section. Perhaps we can provide another blog post discussing just the theory.

The workaround

In short, our problem is that Java is unable to see the relationship between the types Integer and Number when given as generic parameter. But we can make it see:

List<Integer> integers = new ArrayList<Integer>();
List<Number> numberList = new ArrayList<Number>();
Iterable<Number> numbers = numberList;

This will compile and work. I’ve split the creation and filling of the second List into two steps to make more clear what’s happening: By explicitely creating a new collection and (up-)casting every element of the List alone, we can show the compiler that everything’s ok.

The Klingonian Cast

Well, if the compiler wants to see every element of our initial collection to be sure about upcasting, we should show him. But why create a new List and swap the elements by hand every time, when we can just use the “Klingonian Cast“? Ok, I’ve made the name up. But how else would you call a structure that’s essentially an upcast, but using two generic parameters and a dozen lines of code if not something very manly and bold. But enough mystery again, let’s look at the code:

List<Integer> integers = new ArrayList<Integer>();
Iterable<Number> numbers = MakeIterable.<Number>outOf(integers);

The good thing about the Klingonian cast is that it has a very thin footprint at runtime. Your hotspot compiler might even eliminate it completely. But you probably don’t want to hear about it characteristics, but see the implementation:

public class MakeIterable {
  public static <T> Iterable<T> outOf(final Iterable<? extends T> iterable) {
    return new Iterable<T>() {
      public Iterator<T> iterator() {
        return iteratorOutOf(iterable.iterator());

  protected static <T> Iterator<T> iteratorOutOf(final Iterator<? extends T> iterator) {
    return new Iterator<T>() {
      public boolean hasNext() {
        return iterator.hasNext();
      public T next() {
      public void remove() {

That’s it. A “simple” upcast for Java Generics, ready to use it for your own convenience. Enjoy!