What is the meaning of this?

[Osvaldo Doederlein]

I agree too (with Mikael/Rémi/Neal). And I add that, it worries me this
(apparent) thinking of "we cannot add new concepts to the language" - if
this is not Josh's position, it boils down to that in practice: i.e., in
Java there are only methods-inside-objects (or classes for statics), even
inner classes are very explicitly methods-inside-objects, so any new
construct to contain code must be a method-inside-object... we can't have a
fundamentally new construct, like a function/closure/lambda. We can only
have something that _looks like_ a function/closure/lambda but is firmly
rooted (both syntactically and semantically) in the method-of-object
concept, down to backwards-compatible behavior of 'this', identity / memory
allocation, etc.

With such restrictions, Java is doomed to evolve only in the most cumbersome
way possible, every new feature always paying enormous tradeoffs not only to
backwards compatibility (which is already often a big hit - and I agree that
cannot be avoided), but also to the backwards thinking - let's not invent
any really new concepts because most developers are idiots who can't learn
that a function is something different and will certainly write all sorts of
evil code that will fail or not be portable...

I say, let's design functions as well as we can (ok as well ss you can - I


2010/2/2 Mikael Grev <grev at miginfocom.com>

> I must, slightly reluctantly due to historic reasons, agree as well. No
> matter how things are turned lambdas is something new and the object
> implementation should not shine through if not needed or shown advantageous.
>
> Also, I have always thought declaring a variable as 'volatile' would've
> been a better solution than forcing it to be final since so many go around
> that anyway. I know I do sometimes, and I just feel dirty when I do, for no
> good reason since I know what I'm doing (most of the times anyway. Can't
> think of a bug introduced that way).
>
> Cheers,
> Mikael
>
> On Feb 2, 2010, at 19:48 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
>
> > Le 02/02/2010 19:40, Neal Gafter a écrit :
> >> I think Zdenek had it exactly right.
> >>
> >> A lambda expression is not an object creation expression.  The function
> is
> >> not declared within the scope of some object type.  A lambda is written
> as
> >> an independent block of code, and should be scoped accordingly.  Trying
> to
> >> make a lambda act the same as an anonymous class creation expression
> smacks
> >> of cargo-cult language design.
> >>
> >
> > I agree. Lambda is an anonymous function.
> >
> >> Cheers,
> >> Neal
> >>
> >
> > regards,
> > Rémi
>
>
>