On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 08:50, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > I certainly agree with Gary as to why "Commons" is not there being a > practical issue (of no concerted road map and lacking developers to > implement it). However, did I understand correctly that you consider > such a development to be useless? I.e. rather than updating "Commons" > do you suggest that application developers should not use it?
I meant that writing Commons libraries for functional programming still isn't possible with Java's limited generics and type system. I'm talking about higher kinded types, dependent types, monads, functors, etc. While there are some Java libraries out there that attempt to do this [1] [2], there's no "natural" way to express type classes and other functional programming concepts in Java. Considering the lack of Kotlin and Scala libraries in Commons at the moment, I'd conclude that this isn't the most appropriate place for functional programming libraries at the moment. Or maybe more accurately, Commons doesn't have any libraries for this yet (not like we're limited to purely Java here). However, that isn't to say that Commons libraries can't offer anything useful that relies on lambda functions, streams, completable futures, etc., but that is a fairly limited subset of functional programming, and any academic study looking at this should know that due to familiarity with languages like Haskell where "real" functional programming tends to take place still. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of this question entirely. [1]: https://www.functionaljava.org/ [2]: https://www.vavr.io/ -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
