A syntax option (function types versus arrays)

[Howard Lovatt]

I wasn't implying that the JVM couldn't optimize away the object  
creation

   -- Howard Lovatt +61 419 971 263 (sent from my PDA)

On 12/03/2010, at 6:08 PM, John Nilsson <john at milsson.nu> wrote:

> Key words being 'to date', if no specific implementation is dictated  
> by the language spec why assume it will always be a bad one?
>
> BR,
> John
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Howard Lovatt <howard.lovatt at gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> All the implementations suggested to date require at least one new
> object per lambda, so new is signaling that an object will in all
> likely hood be created (unless the JVM can eliminate it).
>
> On 12 March 2010 10:14, John Nilsson <john at milsson.nu> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Howard Lovatt <howard.lovatt at gmail.com 
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> There is an advantage in spelling out that you have an expensive
> >> operation in that people are more likely to be aware of a potential
> >> problem and hence avoid it in the first place
> >
> >
> > But it is only expensive if you assume a broken compiler or VM.  
> There is
> > nothing inherent in the language to suggest that it should be  
> expensive.
> > BR,
> > John
>
>
>
> --
>  -- Howard.
>