5 ms·

My issue with lambdas in Java is the complexity of types in defining interfaces that receive generic Functions as an argument. Really seems like a better defini

• joshlemer 4y ago
  Agreed. If the type of the lambda can be inferred, then they are great to work with. But if you want to define one upfront and use it later, having to spell out the type of it is almost prohibitively annoying (what do I need in this situation, is it a Function or a Consumer or Supplier or Bifunction or BiConsumer or BinaryOperator or Predicate or BiPredicate or IntUnaryOperator or ObjDoubleConsumer or LongToDoubleFunction or .........). Most of the time I'll just avoid it if I can. I think I"m the only one on my team who would ever create a local function rather than a private method, for instance. An other thing is java's lack of tuples. All the time I'm reaching for some kind of ad-hoc grouping/touple but have to resort to using something from Apache or Spring or (perhaps abusing) Map.Entry<K,V>
  • marginalia_nu 4y ago
    > An other thing is java's lack of tuples. All the time I'm reaching for some kind of ad-hoc grouping/touple but have to resort to using something from Apache or Spring or (perhaps abusing) Map.Entry<K,V> Record types does make that a lot easier. They aren't quite as ad-hoc as in other languages, but this: record Foo(int a, String b) {} is a lot less to type than static final class Foo { private final int a; private final String b; public final Foo(int a, String b) { this.a = a; this.b = b; } public int a() { return a; } public String b() { return b; } public int hashCode() { return Objects.hashCode(a, b); } public boolean equals(Object o) { if (o == null) return false; if (o == this) return true; if (o instanceof Foo f) { return a == f.a && Objects.equals(b, f.b); } return false; } public String toString() { return getClass().getSimpleName() + "[ a = " + a + ", " + "b = " + b + "]"; } }