4 ms·
To answer your question, your comment is just snark that doesn't contribute to the conversation. That's probably where you went wrong.
by lowboy 13y ago
To answer your question, your comment is just snark that doesn't contribute to the conversation. That's probably where you went wrong.
- overgard 13y agoYou can accuse me of trolling, but I think the fact that java took this long to adopt these pretty basic features isn't besides the point, it IS the point.
- javafu2 13y agoIn my opinion, lambdas were not introduced in Java before now because Java as already anonymous classes that are at a high level conceptually the same things even if a lambda is more lightweight syntactically and at runtime than an anonymous class
- jryle70 13y agoJava certainly moves very slowly. I recall reading debates on how to support Lambda long before Java 7. The reasons, IMO, are twofolds: 1) The huge install base in enterprise: changing language feature is a big deal, and like it or not, enterprises are conservative in this aspect. One only needs to look at all the garbages included with Windows in the name of backward compatibility. 2) Design by committee: Many vendors have stake in Java eco systems, all with their own agendas. To get them to agree on something take time. In some ways, Java is victim of its own success. On the other hand, JVM is a very solid platform. Those impatient can go with Scala or Clojure. I could be snarky like you were and said Scala was light year ahead of C# in terms of feature evolving, but of course I know C# is a fantastic language which serves its users very well.
- lowboy 13y agoSure, but you can make that point in such a way that it encourages dialogue. A good point won't need an overly edgy delivery.
- overgard 13y agoI could, but I don't care to.
- lowboy 13y agoThen you don't really need the crocodile tears of "Why the hate, guis?". Just set phasers to Such Edgy and blast away!
- overgard 13y agoContext doesn't always come across on the internet, but there were no crocodile tears. I actually thought it was amusing that what I thought was a relatively tame comment got such a reaction. (If anything I'm more happy getting negative votes. I get really uncomfortable when I say shit that gets upvoted to hell because it feels like I'm just shouting into the echo chamber)
- billsix 13y agosince when are lambdas a basic feature? since scheme in the 70s? since smalltalk-80 in 1980? since ruby in 93? since Haskell 98? since c# in 2006? if I got in my delorean, hit 88 miles per hour, went to Sun Microsystems in the early 90's and convinced Guy Steele that yes, we should include Guy's currently 15 year old research of lexically scoped, first class functions into this new language which is designed to drag C++ programmers halfway to lisp, then java would have not been widely adopted, and this run on sentence would never have been written.
- rbanffy 13y agoIf we assume C++ and Lisp are local maxima, dragging C++ developers halfway to Lisp may not be the best thing to do.
- overgard 13y agoI mean, given your first paragraph I would say: yes. To like all of those. It IS basic. So yeah. It's been a basic feature since the 70s. I guess you can give a demerit to C++ for it being the one feature they didn't steal from elsewhere, but then again you can give C++ a black eye for a lot of things. (And still: C++ managed to get lambdas before java did. How messed up is that? Extending Java is about 10x easier than trying to add something to the crufty minefield that is the C++ spec, and they still beat them to the punch.)