Project Lambda: Java Language Specification draft 0.1.5

[John Nilsson]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict at apache.org> wrote:

> 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.


Is it really an object with an anonymous method? Or is it just a method? Or
maybe just a lambda? Or a closure?

I can see how object with an anonymous method kind of fits with the current
state of things. OTOH if there is no real need for a function-object
duality, why force that semantics on it?

In my mind one argument against functions as objects is that it implies a
class implementing that function which could imply restrictions on the
runtime representation of the code in question that might not be warranted.

BR,
John