I see some consensus forming that structural types aren't that
compelling, TCP is a useful property but not a panacea, and in
particular that there ought to be a difference in inline closures and
control abstraction.
I'd like to formalize my CICE/BGGA/FCM hybrid proposal a bit more.
Isn't this ro
Until we sort out if we want Structural types or not, and if we want
long returns or not, java will never have closures. These concerns
need to be explained adequately, there needs to be a clear majority,
and everyone needs to stop whining about syntax (syntax can be fixed.
syntax can be learned.
Sorry, my vote is with Aaron. And IMHO the G1 has all the style of a
road accident. One of the guys I work with has one and he regrets it.
Me, I'm with the posse with my iPhone. ;-)
On Jan 16, 2:07 pm, BoD wrote:
> Technicalities... ;)
>
> BoD
>
> Aaron Walker wrote:
> > Coz It's not REAL Java :
Yes, I heard it - was listening in the car through an FM tuner.
Sounded like an earth loop to me (I used to run a student radio
station) - dare I refer you to wikipedia to read more -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_loop_(electricity) - but there are
plenty more sites that discuss the problem.
Guys, finally got to the end of the _long_ holiday edition and roared
with laughter at the reappearance of the Chipmunks at the end of the
episode. Got a few strange looks in the traffic jam, I can tell you.
Please, please, make sure that they are able to make an occasional
appearance on the show
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> The use case is writing your own language features.
Well. A rather limited set of language feature, involving continue, break
and return.
> Then 'foreach' is utterly unneccessary. You could just write it as a
> library. Same story
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Paul King wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot
> wrote:
>>
>> [...] (I'm still somewhat
>> amazed that eclipse, netbeans, and IDEA don't have a '1.5 this code
>> for me please' refactor tool, AFAIK).
>
> The 'Generify...' refactoring in
I'll keep it going at least one more post Dave :)
At CodeMash this year - developer conference in Ohio last week - 500+
attendees - there were 63 tracks. 5 of them were directly or
indirectly about Groovy or Grails, and another 2 had some Groovy in
them when discussing JVM languages. Oh, and th
Tom Hawtin wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:27 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>> Ah, but, screwing around with the meanings of method signatures would
>> make some serious backwards incompatibility issues.
>
> It would allow a proper superset of what was previously legal.
>
>> Fortunately class files hav
> So, FCM both violates and follows Tennants Correspondance Principle.
> But that is in fact a very good thing, something that a naive
> statement of "violates TCP" fails to appreciate.
Stephen,
not realizing that TCP is violated would be naive and that's what CICE
does. I was not trying to "nam
> That's a rather low-level for a use case.
>
> The principal point of closures is to be able to abstract control
> flow. If you are using closures and require a long jump, then it seems
> to me that you have a refactoring opportunity.
Tom,
I disagree. Returning from inside an if(-else)/for/(do-
Technicalities... ;)
BoD
Aaron Walker wrote:
> Coz It's not REAL Java :p
>
> On Jan 16, 8:45 pm, BoD wrote:
>
>> Hi!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group
"Violating TCP" is a phrase that BGGA and Neal have popularised and
occurred without challenge until FCM came along.
The truth is that the phrase only tells half the story. In the example
Ben gives, it is true to say that you want return to mean 'return from
the enclosing method'. That is because
On Jan 15, 9:20 pm, Ben Schulz wrote:
> Heh? Breaking out of/returning from within loops, I thought that's
> what's being discussed??
That's a rather low-level for a use case.
The principal point of closures is to be able to abstract control
flow. If you are using closures and require a long ju
The FCM proposal is broader than hinted here and enables
implementation across multiple JDK versions.
There are five elements to FCM:
- method literals - a compile-safe way to obtain a
java.util.reflect.Method
- method references - referencing a method such that it can be passed
to a SAM interfac
On Jan 15, 11:27 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> Ah, but, screwing around with the meanings of method signatures would
> make some serious backwards incompatibility issues.
It would allow a proper superset of what was previously legal.
> Fortunately class files have version info so you could d
> Tennent's Correspondence Principle means that you always can create a
> function that can replace an expression and it always means the same
> thing.
Mikael,
that's awkwardly phrased, but correct. However, it has nothing to do
with Java not being a functional language. I can only imagine the b
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> [...] (I'm still somewhat
> amazed that eclipse, netbeans, and IDEA don't have a '1.5 this code
> for me please' refactor tool, AFAIK).
>
The 'Generify...' refactoring in IntelliJ (I am using 8.0.1) is pretty good.
Paul.
--~--~--
and I said it twice for better effect!! LOL
On Jan 16, 9:47 pm, Aaron Walker wrote:
> Coz It's not REAL Java :p
>
> On Jan 16, 8:45 pm, BoD wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> > Happy new year everybody :)
> > I'm catching up my podcast listening after a little holiday break.
>
> > I was surprised that ther
Coz It's not REAL Java :p
On Jan 16, 8:45 pm, BoD wrote:
> Hi!
> Happy new year everybody :)
> I'm catching up my podcast listening after a little holiday break.
>
> I was surprised that there was no mention of Android in the poll about
> the biggest Java story in 2008.
> * It was a new OS for m
Hi!
Happy new year everybody :)
I'm catching up my podcast listening after a little holiday break.
I was surprised that there was no mention of Android in the poll about
the biggest Java story in 2008.
* It was a new OS for mobile phones
* backed up by Google and other major players in the indu
Qt Jambi already exists. By "rolling into" Java you presumably mean
bloating the platform even further by including yet another library
that most people won't use in the base distribution.
I'd prefer to see Swing and AWT taken _out_ of the JDK, allowing
people to choose freely between Qt, Swing a
22 matches
Mail list logo
