Comments on: Closures after all?

By: Paranoid

Paranoid — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:50:05 +0000

Could the announcement be to distract attention from something else? Please the noisy crowd with one thing while taking away something else?

My guess would be modularisation. Has the development timeline blown out? Have they encountered some difficult problems?

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:53:43 +0000

Mario – lambdaj is great, but it is no substitute for a true closures implementation, and obviously can’t compete performance-wise since it depends on proxies.

By: Mario Fusco

Mario Fusco — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:48:03 +0000

Being the developer of the lambdaj project I am sure I am a bit biased, but I believe this situation is becoming truly ridiculous.

This proposal provides more or less the same set of features offered by lambdaj (actually lambdaj has also curry that seems missing in this spec). The only advantage i can see here is a nicer syntax.

But I took 3 days to develop closures in lambdaj, while (if everything will go as claimed and I am not sure of that) it will need about 3 years to have the same stuff in jdk7. Indeed I remember I am participating to discussion about closures since late 2007 and now they are telling us that we will have them in late 2010.

The elephant is going to give birth the mice.

By: javajoe

javajoe — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:33:50 +0000

Gili,

Shove it down our throats? Seriously? If don’t understand closures then move to another language that doesn’t have them. You’ll be hard pressed finding one. Please amuse us and tell us the proposals that have more consensus.

By: Gili

Gili — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:05:35 +0000

Hmm… who do I kill for this? Seriously, wtf?!

There are so many other proposals that have more consensus and are better for Java than closures. Why shove this down our throats now?