I am still struggling with the lambdaj syntax. Here is a Groovy closure example:
def x = 10
def incByX = { arg -> arg + x }
assert incByX(4) == 14
x = 20
assert incByX(5) == 25
What is the equivalent lambdaj?
Thanks,
Paul.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
Yes I agree that your example appears to do the exact same thing, and I'm
definitely willing to take your word for it. The point of the discussion
isn't about using the existing ability to close over instance variables
inside methods, but about adding syntax to close over method variables
inside in
Hi guys,
I've been playing with the JAX-RS plugins within Netbeans 6.8 beta,
I've been looking at how the code works and feel that some
improvements could be made.
I'd be happy to hear what you think, especially when it comes to the
architecture.
http://spikyorange.blogspot.com/2009/11/jax-rs-an
On Nov 30, 7:06 pm, Mohamed Bana wrote:
> If no one has a good solution, what would you say is the best?
In general, to be a good solution, you'd need the following:
1.A robust, frictionless deployment mechanism. That is: the user
visits a web page; the app runs instantly. No installing anyth
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:31 PM, opinali wrote:
> Unfortunately, JavaScript (plus its DOM interface with the outside
> world) is a pretty poor choice for such UVM role.
Yeah, everybody complains about the DOM. I'm not suggesting coding to
that though. You really have to experience a library like
comments inline.
—Mohamed
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Simon Brocklehurst wrote:
>
> On Nov 30, 1:43 pm, Mark Volkmann wrote:
>
> > I used to think that until recently.
>
> Sorry, I don't think I was clear in my meaning. I think JavaScript-
> based approaches to developing web apps running
Sorry fro the broken post (ironically, something that NEVER happened
to me with a real mail client - I'm using Google Groups' web
client...)
If Java applets/JAWS (with or without JavaFX) fail, I'm afraid that
the winner will be either Flash or Silverlight, not the W3C-backed
web. It's probably rig
I think they were chosen at random. Joe probably grabbed the grey one
because it was the least geeky. I think they turned out to be pretty
good matches in the end.
On Nov 30, 3:57 am, Rick wrote:
> I didn't realise that Dick has a "Red Hat". That's pretty funny. :D
>
> Do the other hat colours
Unfortunately, JavaScript (plus its DOM interface with the outside
world) is a pretty poor choice for such UVM role.
First, with its dynamic typing, prototype-based structure, it's one of
the hardest languages to optimize and even next-gen JITs like V8/TM/
Nitro will not compete with Java (even wi
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Simon Brocklehurst wrote:
>
> On Nov 30, 1:43 pm, Mark Volkmann wrote:
>
>> I used to think that until recently.
>
> Sorry, I don't think I was clear in my meaning. I think JavaScript-
> based approaches to developing web apps running in the browser (like
> JQuery
Yeah true, but JavaScript is so powerful that you get the illusion
it's another language. I'd add "jQuery in Action" and "RESTful Web
Services" to you book recommendation - it makes programming web stuff
in Java fun again.
/Casper
On Nov 30, 2:50 pm, Mark Volkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 a
On Nov 30, 1:43 pm, Mark Volkmann wrote:
> I used to think that until recently.
Sorry, I don't think I was clear in my meaning. I think JavaScript-
based approaches to developing web apps running in the browser (like
JQuery or GWT) are, in the end, the best available choices for
building web ap
> Erm, that's kinda why I put it in there :-/
Sorry, but I am afraid I am not understanding what you are saying. Do
you agree that your example and mine do exactly the same thing or not?
Of course just a "no" it is not enough as answer :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed t
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
> People are no longer programming directly in JavaScript though, but
> abstractions on top a la jQuery and GWT which shields the developer
> from most of the ugliness.
jQuery developers code directly in JavaScript, but don't code directly
to th
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Simon Brocklehurst wrote:
>
> I think JavaScript is a poor
> choice of language for building sophisticated browser-based
> applications.
I used to think that until recently. Two things changed my opinion.
1) I read "JavaScript - The Good Parts" by Douglas Crockfor
Erm, that's kinda why I put it in there :-/
2009/11/30 Mario Fusco
> > Like Neal said, it's a Turing machine. Everything atop of LISP is sugar.
> The
> > point is closing over the *binding* not the value. Otherwise it's simply
> an
> > implied invocation parameter.
>
> I am quite tired to read t
People are no longer programming directly in JavaScript though, but
abstractions on top a la jQuery and GWT which shields the developer
from most of the ugliness. Google has proven time and again how they
perceive JavaScript as nothing less than a universal machine layer
opening the door for univer
Simon Brocklehurst wrote:
> On Nov 30, 1:27 am, Josh McDonald wrote
>> 2) Stop with the applet. Seriously. The browser plugin war is over, Adobe
>> won. Years ago. And before Java 7 is ready and modularised, Google will have
>> gotten V8 and (Canvas||a replacement for Canvas) up to par. It's just
On Nov 30, 1:27 am, Josh McDonald wrote:
> 2) Stop with the applet. Seriously. The browser plugin war is over, Adobe
> won. Years ago. And before Java 7 is ready and modularised, Google will have
> gotten V8 and (Canvas||a replacement for Canvas) up to par. It's just more
> important to them th
Unrelated to hat colours, but I was kind of bummed we didn't get a singalong
at Devoxx. Had been looking forward to that.
Moandji
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
I didn't realise that Dick has a "Red Hat". That's pretty funny. :D
Do the other hat colours have any significance?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscri
Because we are developers, we invent new layers of abstractions every
so often and considers this shift in complexity, progress. :)
/Casper
On Nov 30, 12:16 pm, Mario Fusco wrote:
> > Like Neal said, it's a Turing machine. Everything atop of LISP is sugar. The
> > point is closing over the *bind
> Like Neal said, it's a Turing machine. Everything atop of LISP is sugar. The
> point is closing over the *binding* not the value. Otherwise it's simply an
> implied invocation parameter.
I am quite tired to read this nihilistic sentence. If everything that
matters is to have a Turing machine why
> Let me have a crack at it. Here's some Javascript code:
>
> function showClosure()
> {
> var localVar = 7;
> var f = function(x)
> {
> var result = x + localVar;
> localVar = 10;
> return result;
> }
> localVar = 9;
> return f;
>
(please disregard my previous message... pressed by accident on the tab key
again...)
Hello Java people,
Does anybody in here knows what the plans are for the uml plugin of netbeans
? I'm trying to install it on netbeans 6.8 but that's not working. And I've
got the impression it's not exactly act
Hello Java people,
Does anybody in here knows what the plans are for the uml plugin of netbea
I'm a fervent user of the UML plugin for netbeans. Now that's I've installed
Netbeans 6.8 I'm looking to install it.
Does
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "
Honestly, that kind of mutable state juggling simply will make
multithreading even more horrid.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Alexey Zinger wrote:
> Josh,
>
> Let's not forget that we can do these things in Java now, even without any
> kind of closure syntax sugar. If syntax makes it easier,
27 matches
Mail list logo
