Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

That can't happen with shared mutable objects. On Jul 23, 2012 3:46 PM, "Russel Winder" wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 08:25 -0700, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > […] > > To be fair, there is nothing running on the JVM today showing that this > is > > wrong. All the alternate solutions fail on one of th

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 08:25 -0700, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: […] > To be fair, there is nothing running on the JVM today showing that this is > wrong. All the alternate solutions fail on one of these criteria while > java.concurrent.util meets them all: A quick general response, I'll try and do a more

Re: [The Java Posse] Equivalent for JSR-275 ?

How does that make them not first-class? On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Simon Ochsenreither < simon.ochsenreit...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >> ... apart the first class functions? >> > > First-class functions aren't part of Java 8. You need an explicit or > inferable nominal type on the LHS. >

Re: [The Java Posse] Equivalent for JSR-275 ?

> ... apart the first class functions? > First-class functions aren't part of Java 8. You need an explicit or inferable nominal type on the LHS. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https:

Re: [The Java Posse] Equivalent for JSR-275 ?

The JSR was twice rejected for technical reasons, including the use of the javax.measurement namespace. The leader of the JSR (JScience author) considers the JSR dead that last I heard. I use JScience in production, and have built extensions to it's spatial conversions. I find it to be a very go

Re: [The Java Posse] Equivalent for JSR-275 ?

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:30:30 +0200, Jan Goyvaerts wrote: I've been asked to find something for units of measures & conversion. In the early days there was JSR-275 . Which today is rejected. A pity because the implementation has merit. Why has it b

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

On 23 July 2012 17:54, Martijn Verburg wrote: > Hi Kevin > > > But it also demonstrates the performance benefit of avoiding > > locks - which can easily harm performance much more than GC pressure. > This > > is the same reason that the asynchronous model also performs so well, > even > > in th

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

Hi Kevin > I've worked with, and debugged, code written in several different > concurrency paradigms: > > Data-flow > Asynchronous / Futures / Continuation Passing > Actors > Software-Transactional memory > Shared state with locks & mutexes > Fork-Join > > and my experience mirrors Ricky's, shared

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

I've worked with, and debugged, code written in several different concurrency paradigms: - Data-flow - Asynchronous / Futures / Continuation Passing - Actors - Software-Transactional memory - Shared state with locks & mutexes - Fork-Join and my experience mirrors Ricky's, shared

[The Java Posse] Re: Equivalent for JSR-275 ?

I'm not sure if it's "equivalent" but JScience provides an implementation of the Units of Measure interfaces. On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:30:30 PM UTC+1, Jan Goyvaerts wrote: > > I've been asked to find something for units of measures &

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

"I claim that understanding errors that arise because of multithreaded mutable code is really not that difficult." My experience is entirely the opposite. I found it very difficult to work out what the original programmer intended to happen in what order in code like that, to fix problems without

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > java.concurrent.util is showing more and more high-level features as > Doug et al. work them in, but the problem remains that most Java > programmers still think shared-memory multi-threading is the way to code > up parallel algorithms. > T

[The Java Posse] Equivalent for JSR-275 ?

I've been asked to find something for units of measures & conversion. In the early days there was JSR-275 . Which today is rejected. A pity because the implementation has merit. Is there an equivalent for this or does everybody cooks his own library ? :-)

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

On 23 July 2012 11:07, Russel Winder wrote: > On Sun, 2012-07-22 at 16:41 -0700, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > […] > > As for the concurrency library... seriously? java.concurrent.util is not > > just very powerful, it's very well designed and it's running tens of > > thousands of high volume web sites

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

On Sun, 2012-07-22 at 16:41 -0700, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: […] > As for the concurrency library... seriously? java.concurrent.util is not > just very powerful, it's very well designed and it's running tens of > thousands of high volume web sites today. No other library can claim to > come close to th

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 06:34 -0300, Ricky Clarkson wrote: > Sure, I generally do stick with static languages. Groovy was promoted as a > step up from Java, though, which until that line of code is rejected, it > clearly isn't. A step sideways, perhaps. Early (i.e. late 2003, early 2004) Groovy ma

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

On Sun, 2012-07-22 at 23:06 +0100, Kevin Wright wrote: > The story sounds familiar except for the part about Dick of course, because > I experienced it with a different language :) > > A much better "plain old" object type, improved collections, and a decent > concurrency library will go a long wa

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

Whoops, you added the static typing info while I was replying.. Can that @TypeChecked be added at the class level? Within a typechecked class can you still use all/most of the Groovy features or is it basically Java within there? I might grab a copy and play around, thanks for at least the infor

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

Sure, I generally do stick with static languages. Groovy was promoted as a step up from Java, though, which until that line of code is rejected, it clearly isn't. A step sideways, perhaps. Isn't Groovy adding static typing now? Will that line be rejected thereafter? Java's lack of type inferen

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

On Sun, 2012-07-22 at 16:41 -0300, Ricky Clarkson wrote: > Let me know when int i = "hello"; is rejected by the compiler and I'll look > again. On the other hand, Groovy has taken a foray into static typing: import groovy.transform.TypeChecked @TypeChecked def f ( ) { int i = 'Hello' } leads

Re: [The Java Posse] Groovy love

On Sun, 2012-07-22 at 16:41 -0300, Ricky Clarkson wrote: > Let me know when int i = "hello"; is rejected by the compiler and I'll look > again. Clearly you are a static typing sort of person, so stick with static typed languages. Dynamically typed languages do not obey the same typing rules as sta

Re: [The Java Posse] Tail Call Recursion?

blast! You're quite right of course. This is clearly a wake-up call that it's been far too long since I last did any Haskell coding :) On Monday, 23 July 2012, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Kevin Wright > 'kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com');> > > wrote: > >> This is why S

Re: [The Java Posse] Tail Call Recursion?

This is a straw-man argument. Yes, it's true that a linked list isn't inherently parallelisable, and yes it's not the the structure I'd choose if I wanted to use as many cores as possible when sorting a single list, or converting it to uppercase, etc. etc. As a counterpoint, many fork-join approa