Comments on: To closure or not to closure http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/15/to-closure-or-not-to-closure/ Alex Miller's technical blog Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:39:50 -0800 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: My starred Google Reader items about PL research and other things | A Programmers Blog with Extra Bit of Creativity http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/15/to-closure-or-not-to-closure/comment-page-1/#comment-278887 My starred Google Reader items about PL research and other things | A Programmers Blog with Extra Bit of Creativity Sat, 19 Feb 2011 05:28:53 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/15/to-closure-or-not-to-closure/#comment-278887 [...] To closure or not to closure [...] [...] To closure or not to closure [...]

]]> By: My starred Google Reader items about PL research and other things | Sagar Sunkle's Blog http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/15/to-closure-or-not-to-closure/comment-page-1/#comment-184349 My starred Google Reader items about PL research and other things | Sagar Sunkle's Blog Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:10:17 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/15/to-closure-or-not-to-closure/#comment-184349 [...] To closure or not to closure [...] [...] To closure or not to closure [...]

]]> By: pstickne http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/15/to-closure-or-not-to-closure/comment-page-1/#comment-19587 pstickne Thu, 03 Jan 2008 04:41:45 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/15/to-closure-or-not-to-closure/#comment-19587 I would love closures but I'm not sure closures would be truly appreciated by themselves in Java because Java was not designed to be very "functional" (paradigm, not usefulness). That is, Java is set quite deep in the imperative/OO camp. The primitive/object separation doesn't come from having a "null". Ruby, for instance, has "nil" (a "null singleton object") and does not (outwardly) distinguish between primatives and other objects. The problem, unfortunately, comes from the very core of Java... I am currently using Scala which removes the int/Integer separation (or rather, lets the compiler do the work but, in a more natural and consistent manner than autoboxing in Java.) Using the Option ("Maybe monad") in Scala makes me hope I never have to touch null again. The Nice programming language (targets the JVM) offered complete "maybe" checking natively as well--I believe, directly around, null. I would love closures but I’m not sure closures would be truly appreciated by themselves in Java because Java was not designed to be very “functional” (paradigm, not usefulness). That is, Java is set quite deep in the imperative/OO camp.

The primitive/object separation doesn’t come from having a “null”. Ruby, for instance, has “nil” (a “null singleton object”) and does not (outwardly) distinguish between primatives and other objects. The problem, unfortunately, comes from the very core of Java… I am currently using Scala which removes the int/Integer separation (or rather, lets the compiler do the work but, in a more natural and consistent manner than autoboxing in Java.) Using the Option (“Maybe monad”) in Scala makes me hope I never have to touch null again. The Nice programming language (targets the JVM) offered complete “maybe” checking natively as well–I believe, directly around, null.

]]> By: Alex Miller - Java 7 Roundup (Dec 18th) http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/15/to-closure-or-not-to-closure/comment-page-1/#comment-17927 Alex Miller - Java 7 Roundup (Dec 18th) Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:54:06 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/15/to-closure-or-not-to-closure/#comment-17927 [...] My random thoughts [...] [...] My random thoughts [...]

]]> By: Anonymous http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/15/to-closure-or-not-to-closure/comment-page-1/#comment-17855 Anonymous Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:22:14 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/12/15/to-closure-or-not-to-closure/#comment-17855 Autoboxing wouldn't be so bad if its behavior wasn't different from the primitive types. Specifically its a little ridiculous to me that an Number[] a can throw a runtimeexception acessing it when a int[] can't (NullPointerException). The primitive/object value separation that is at the root of the type system says that a primitive can't have a null value, and this propagates to all the types. However the opposite situation isn't satisfactory either, (a null value suddenly becomes 0). I actually am thinking that there is no global solution. People that advocate the Maybe Monad and similar stratagems are misguided in my view since that is just pushing the problem back (useful if there is no difference but mostly just wrong). Autoboxing wouldn’t be so bad if its behavior wasn’t different from the primitive types. Specifically its a little ridiculous to me that an Number[] a can throw a runtimeexception acessing it when a int[] can’t (NullPointerException). The primitive/object value separation that is at the root of the type system says that a primitive can’t have a null value, and this propagates to all the types. However the opposite situation isn’t satisfactory either, (a null value suddenly becomes 0). I actually am thinking that there is no global solution. People that advocate the Maybe Monad and similar stratagems are misguided in my view since that is just pushing the problem back (useful if there is no difference but mostly just wrong).

]]>