Too terse and too alien?

[Brian Goetz]

Let's take a breath here.  Let me quote the strawman:

> The concrete syntax shown here is strictly provisional. 

The syntax outlined in the strawman is *simply a placeholder*.  As Maurizio says, it is easy to parse, and we need a concrete syntax so we can have the more significant discussions about semantics and scope.  

Oracle is well aware of how important syntax is in the usability of the language and how it shapes users mental models of language features.  We are also well aware that this syntax is "alien" (as well as other adjectives.)  We just have far more important things to pay attention to right now.  

I promise you syntax WILL be revisited. However, having syntax discussions on this list at this time is counterproductive, so I ask that this forum focus its energies elsewhere for now.  



On Jun 1, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Howard Lovatt wrote:

> Rémi Forax forax at univ-mlv.fr  Sat May 29 07:14:34 PDT 2010 wrote:
>> I've tried a swearword but legal:
>> 
>> #()(#(){}).();
>> 
>> The compiler knows more slang words than me :)
> 
> Rémi comment, whilst very amusing, is a little worrying. Also there are
> already a number of negative comments, e.g.:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse/browse_frm/thread/54ab72091a1ffe95
> 
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.baptiste-wicht.com/2010/05/oracle-pushes-a-first-version-of-closures/comment-page-1/#comment-2023
> 
> 
> Anyone else worried about the reaction of Java developers who are not so
> involved with lambda dev? Is the syntax too terse and too alien?
> 
> -- Howard.
>