Project Lambda: Java Language Specification draft 0.1.5

[Paul Benedict]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot
<reinier at zwitserloot.com> wrote:
> Why can't I thwart them?
> You're complaining about something being new and unfamiliar to java
> programmers, and I'm replying with: Yes. That's because it's new. Seems
> tautological when you put it that way, doesn't it?

Invoking a method on an object is not new. It is not ontologically
different. We haven't ventured into the unknown here. You still have
an object and you still have a method. I grant you the situation is
different -- Java hasn't had function objects before -- but it's not a
radical departure: an object and a method still exist. The big
difference is the anonymity of the method name, yet I am not convinced
of the proposed solution. A general name will do just fine and keep
consistency with historical Java syntax. The proposed syntax is
radical, and what for? Because we can? It is unjustifiable because the
same paradigm of invoking a method on an object still exist.

Paul