Project Lambda: Java Language Specification draft 0.1.5

[Paul Benedict]

My only advice is to keep simplicity and the obvious in mind. I think
the "object.()" syntax violates the principle of least surprise -- I
was surprised to suddenly see method calls without a method name. The
decision does make sense within context, but it is obscure and
esoteric; I think it's too much of a break with the past. If you
really believe that the "object.()" syntax is the best, I'll trust
your decision (i.e., having a doctorate, working on C#, etc.) but I
wanted to raise my objection still.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict at apache.org> wrote:
>> Thanks for the links. To offer my perspective, those who support the
>> syntax don't appear to have a typical background -- usually those who
>> are admitted language designers or are serious hobbyists about
>> languages. If that sounds funny for a "lamda dev" mailing list,
>> there's definitely a spread subscribed here based on responses.
>> Nothing wrong with that. I just think those who opposed better
>> represented the casual Java population. Not being a language designer
>> myself, I empathize with their position.
>
> Yes, I definitely see that point.  Experienced language developers are
> often better able to judge how difficult a job it will be for
> developers to internalize a language change based on experience with
> other languages, while programmers often fear things that appear to be
> different, even though that difference may improve their lot once they
> begin using the feature.
>
> In any case, this isn't a democracy.  We get to peek over the
> shoulders of folks at Sun every now and then to see their progress.
>