Hi clay,
- Better Generics: Java lacks reified generics in that it discards type
> info at runtime. I agree that this is a deficiency of Java, but the
> practical consequences of this seem quite obscure.
>
The practical consequence is that for example an ArrayList with one million
doubles tak
- Better Generics: Java lacks reified generics in that it discards type
info at runtime. I agree that this is a deficiency of Java, but the
practical consequences of this seem quite obscure. Sure C# can do List
faster than a Java List, but int[] goes much faster in both
languages, and most supe
I disagree that it's a ghetto, but there's certainly scope for improvement.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Simon Ochsenreither <
simon.ochsenreit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's not an attack: it's the reality check that says that in academia you
>>
>> discuss about what's the better technology on
> The only rationale I've seen so far is blaming the Java seniors.
Perhaps I should tell you why I'm not using Scala (and why I have done in
other jobs) in my workplace today. It's not related to Java seniors in any
way.
Current job: Management don't like variety, if we switch to Scala we'd have
> It's not an attack: it's the reality check that says that in academia you
>
> discuss about what's the better technology on paper, outside academia you
>
> discuss about what's the better technology in the sense that sells more.
> Nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe that's the reaso
In related news:
"Vitamin Water" outsells Laurent-Perrier vintage Rosé
"Turkey ham" outsells Jamón Serrano
Pre-cut sandwich-size processed cheese squares outsell Parmigiano Reggiano
Wal-mart sells more suits than both Paul Smith and Armani combined
McDonalds outsell every Michelin-starred restaura
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:21:17 +0200, Ricky Clarkson
wrote:
Selling more has little to do with being better, get that out of your
head.
You're Italian, right? Starbucks sells more than Italian coffee shops,
but is not better in any meaningful way (perhaps more comfortable
chairs).
It's
Selling more has little to do with being better, get that out of your head.
You're Italian, right? Starbucks sells more than Italian coffee shops,
but is not better in any meaningful way (perhaps more comfortable chairs).
Our competitor sells more than us, we both sell developer-hours. In fact
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:03:23 +0200, Simon Ochsenreither
wrote:
After reading that response I'm not sure whether you have actually read
what I wrote.
Most of the stuff you say was actually explicitly addressed in my comment
already and some of the stuff is more or less beating down a straw man
After reading that response I'm not sure whether you have actually read
what I wrote.
Most of the stuff you say was actually explicitly addressed in my comment
already and some of the stuff is more or less beating down a straw man
build up from things I never said.
Isn't it quite ironic that pe
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:11:19 +0200, Simon Ochsenreither
wrote:
*I first typed my response to your comments, but it looks that it became
more of a rant about the current state of the Java ecosystem. So nothing
against you, clay, your response just caused me to vent my deep
frustration
about
*I first typed my response to your comments, but it looks that it became
more of a rant about the current state of the Java ecosystem. So nothing
against you, clay, your response just caused me to vent my deep frustration
about the willfull ignorance, the anti-intellectualism, and the denial of
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:57:31 +0200, Casper Bang
wrote:
I think it's a crying shame the Java space has been so conservative, to
this day I still don't get why we Sun/Oracle didn't go all in with a lean
next-gen replacement to remain relevant and give C# some competition.
It's still our old s
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:12:29 +0200, Ricky Clarkson
wrote:
You 'feel' that it won't be backward compatible? I like reasons, do you
have any of those or only feelings?
"Feel" because honestly I still don't understand what will be in and out,
and which decisions are final or not. I suppose
Terribly sorry, they are all there and working. I'm having glitches with
early builds of IntelliJ 12's Java 8 support (to be expected), but the
functional collection enhancements are there and work as expected. thanks.
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:24:27 PM UTC-5, Ricky Clarkson wrote:
>
> I hav
I have downloaded that, and I do see those. Take a look at the Iterable
interface, it's got all these methods (some pasting errors around generics
below, these are not raw types):
- allMatch(Predicate): boolean
- anyMatch(Predicate): boolean
- count(): long
- cumulate(BinaryOperator)
If I download the latest build from http://jdk8.java.net/lambda/, I can use
lambdas perfectly, but I don't see the new functional enhancements to
collections (filter, forEach, map, etc). Anyone know when this will be
available?
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 12:44:35 PM UTC-5, clay wrote:
>
> http
http://mreinhold.org/blog/_aux/j1-2012-tech-keynote-fx+se+em.pdf
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 10:29:36 AM UTC-5, Simon Ochsenreither wrote:
>
> Do you have any links, slides, videos, talks etc.?
>
> Haven't seen anything yet. At least the videos are not yet available afaik.
>
--
You received this
I think everyone would agree that Java has been very slow to evolve
relative to just about everything else.
However, Is the CLR ahead of the JVM? Really? Is C# ahead of Java? How so?
The big important features that C# has that Java 7 lacks are already in
Java 8: concise, first class functions,
On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 17:58 +0100, Kevin Wright wrote:
> I'm with Cédric here, Sun and Oracle alike both had to tow the line for
> their most profitable support contract holders, investment banks.
>
> For their part, the banks largely showed a level of risk aversion that
> makes Beaker from the Mu
I'm with Cédric here, Sun and Oracle alike both had to tow the line for
their most profitable support contract holders, investment banks.
For their part, the banks largely showed a level of risk aversion that
makes Beaker from the Muppets look like Chuck Norris - paying *vast* sums
of money to ens
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 6:00:50 PM UTC+2, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
>
> The CLR is hardly ever a consideration in Java directions. The main
> concerns are much more along the lines of offering as much added value
> while preserving backward compatibility, two objectives that are, sadly,
> very
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Simon Ochsenreither <
simon.ochsenreit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> “what's the most minimal thing to do to prevent the feature gap to the CLR
> from getting even more embarrassing”.
The CLR is hardly ever a consideration in Java directions. The main
concerns are much m
I've posted my slides @ slideshare.
- Kirk
On 2012-10-02, at 8:29 AM, Simon Ochsenreither
wrote:
> Do you have any links, slides, videos, talks etc.?
>
> Haven't seen anything yet. At least the videos are not yet available afaik.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed
Do you have any links, slides, videos, talks etc.?
Haven't seen anything yet. At least the videos are not yet available afaik.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java
Posse" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/m
Of course it's silent in here ! They're all at JavaOne. :-p
I would think JavaFX is the major feature. No ?
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM, clay wrote:
> I've read through the slides for the major talks this year. They presented
> the exact same Java 8 content at last year's JavaOne 2011 show:
I've read through the slides for the major talks this year. They presented
the exact same Java 8 content at last year's JavaOne 2011 show: lambdas,
collection library updates, etc.
Is there anything new this year? typesafe is showing off their new products
which are amazing. But is the core Jav
>
> I will be disappointed if all these anticipated JVM enhancements offer no
> measurable or noticeable improvement to Java 8 over current versions of
> Scala.
>
Well, I think there are chances for some minor optimizations due to not
having to carry around all the class baggage and its semanti
I will be disappointed if all these anticipated JVM enhancements offer no
measurable or noticeable improvement to Java 8 over current versions of
Scala.
The only advantage I see is that the byte code is cleaner and doesn't need
as many internal Java class files like what Scala generates. This s
Incidentally, I'm (very slowly) doing that refactor in a fork of Functional
Java. Unfortunately FJ uses classes instead of interfaces and unlike the
BGGA prototype Java 8 lambdas can only target interface types. I'm
replacing final instance methods with Java 8 defender methods, and moving
static
> I don't think this is true, is it?
>
Every version of Java has incremented the class file version and classes
compiled for a newer version won't run on older versions.
So you can't use a version of javac supporting lambdas and target an older
version. (javac has the target argument, but that
You 'feel' that it won't be backward compatible? I like reasons, do you
have any of those or only feelings?
On Oct 2, 2012 5:36 AM, "Fabrizio Giudici"
wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 05:21:06 +0200, Josh Berry wrote:
>
> I think we are confusing forward compatibility with backwards
>> compatibili
I don't know of anything that doesn't compile, but I've found a few things
that exhibit different behaviour. The best example is the static
initialisation of classes. Using the following example:
package foo;
public class FooTest {
public static class Foobar {
static {
System.out.prin
Coming from the other direction, I'd be very surprised if other JVM
languages don't begin offering a solution based on invokedynamic once Java
8 adoption takes off.
Given that Oracle will be optimising the VM for this pattern in particular,
the benefits in terms of size, performance, and interop a
Is there any technical reason? Given that
adding the option to create anonymous classes as well as invokedynamic
would certainly make the compiler more complex;
using invokedynamic will almost certainly be more efficient in terms of
.class files generated & probably execution;
and Oracle would pro
Am 02.10.2012 10:36, schrieb Fabrizio Giudici:
Definitely. Java is mostly backward compatible and I feel Java 8 will
be the first exception.
Is there any particular reason a java 8 compiler woudl be unable to emit
bytecode (with a -target parameter) that is backwards-compatible?
couldn't the
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 05:21:06 +0200, Josh Berry wrote:
I think we are confusing forward compatibility with backwards
compatibility. Most major releases have introduced something that
would not compile under a previous release. All releases can run
things that were valid in a previous release.
37 matches
Mail list logo
