Effectively final

[Neal Gafter]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> That's absolutely true.  But the bar is not, and should not be, "we
> should add a language feature if there is some model in which that
> feature makes sense."  The ability to point to examples where it would
> be safe or sensible is a necessary, but not remotely sufficient,
> condition to justify inclusion of a language feature.
>
> The choice to exclude mutable local capture was not an oversight, but
> the result of a reasoned tradeoff which includes cases like those you
> allude to.
>

"mutable local capture" is not a language feature.  Locals variables are a
feature.  Variable mutation (assignment) is a feature.  Lambdas (closures)
are a feature.

The choice not to "add mutable local capture" was not a choice "not to add"
a language feature, because "mutable local capture" isn't a language
feature, it is the intersection of otherwise orthogonal language features.
The choice to exclude mutable local capture was a decision to design Java's
language features in a non-orthogonal way, by considering and defining the
interactions of individual features on a case-by-case basis by reference to
use cases and their perceived importance.  That's not always the best way to
design a programming language.
http://gafter.blogspot.com/2006/09/failure-of-imagination-in-language_17.html