by mthornton - 2008-08-15 03:41
by jwenting - 2008-08-12 01:57
Maybe it's time to hand over the language spec to the ISO/ECMA, at least they spend decades debating such decisions, making them both well thought out and late enough that my career would be over before they ever make it into the mainstream, rather than making them based on a Me2! mentality as is the case with everything Sun and the JCP are doing these days.
by ewin - 2008-08-14 02:18
But long time ago Sun made a final decision that Java needs to have closures. That's why the closure fanboys can afford to ignore all arguments. They know they don't have to listen.
It is not a question if closures or not, but just which POS syntax and POS semantics we will get.
Closures are about the careers of those who promote them (e.g. landing a job at Google). They are not about the language, and certainly not about Joe Average Programmer.
by dserodio - 2008-08-14 06:51
by sorrynoremorse - 2008-08-22 03:54
by mrmorris - 2008-08-13 16:52
by scotty69 - 2008-08-14 07:14
by imichtch - 2008-08-14 01:57
by aehrenr - 2008-08-14 11:14
by nopjn - 2008-08-15 05:00
by aehrenr - 2008-08-15 22:54
by nopjn - 2008-08-15 05:20
by scolebourne - 2008-08-13 09:26
I can't really answer this (as the co-author of FCM closures). The problems involved are complex, and the practicalities of finding a suitable solution equally so. "Closures" has also come to mean many things in the debate, from simpler inner classes right up to full-featured Scala-like constructs.
I should also emphasise that the debate isn't really about the syntax, but the semantics. Do last-line-no-semicolon return of values, and non-local returns have a place in Java? Is the extra power justified?
My opinion is that the debate needs at least another 2-3 years of expert examination if the right answer is to be reached. If Java 7 will wait, then so be it. Personally, I would have preferred to have seen a Java 7 out this year with no language changes, followed by a Java 8 with such changes in about 2010. But unfortunately, Sun have taken their eye off the ball with the JavaFX misadventure.
by yardena - 2008-08-13 08:46
by yardena - 2008-08-13 09:01
by nopjn - 2008-08-13 03:41
by aehrenr - 2008-08-12 12:39
by scotty69 - 2008-08-12 10:44
by andrein - 2008-08-11 23:02
by aberrant - 2008-08-11 13:49
by twosuns - 2008-08-12 18:26
by jhannes - 2008-08-11 10:20
by ewin - 2008-08-14 02:09
The problems with this "discussion" were:
It doesn't matter if Java 7 will be delayed because of closures or not,. Sun will force-feed us closures. The number under which they will ram them in our mouth doesn't matter (anyhow, since when did Sun manage to keep product version numbers straight?).
(*) I wrote "public mentioning" and not "public discussion" by intentions, because the closure fanboys aren't willing to discuss the no-closure option at all, instead they prefer living in their lalala land.
by mthornton - 2008-08-15 04:06
by aehrenr - 2008-08-14 11:57
by dserodio - 2008-08-14 06:44
Your use of this web site or any of its content or software indicates your agreement to be bound by these Terms of Participation.
Copyright © 2015, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.