Too terse and too alien?

[Howard Lovatt]

@Brian & Maurizio,

Glad to hear that there is a definite intention to revisit the syntax, I
wouldn't want this important feature, lambdas, to be derailed because of
something, that is on one level at least, 'trivial'.

When you feel you have the resources to devote to syntax one option would be
to start by requesting for a list of criteria that the syntax should meet.
Oracle, along with comments on lambda dev, could then sift that list. Once
the criteria are decided, then a request for concrete syntaxes could be
posted on lambda dev. Oracle, along with lambda dev, could then mark the
proposed syntaxes against the criteria. If done in this public manner, it
may well help to foster support in the wider community. It would also be a
great resource in explaining to other developers who are not following
lambda dev why the eventually chosen syntax was a good, well-considered
choice, rather than a whim or rushed choice.

Congratulations on getting a running prototype.

Cheers,

 -- Howard.

On 2 June 2010 04:15, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >
>
>


-- 
 -- Howard.