Comments on: Java 7 http://blog.tmorris.net/java-7/ The weblog of Tony Morris Sat, 19 May 2012 02:51:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Tony Morris http://blog.tmorris.net/java-7/#comment-118682 Tony Morris Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:52:59 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1030#comment-118682 Rejected or not, there existed a functioning compiler years ago. Rejected or not, there existed a functioning compiler years ago.

]]> By: Alan http://blog.tmorris.net/java-7/#comment-118038 Alan Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:37:35 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1030#comment-118038 The Java syntax you discuss in this article, while proposed, was rejected long ago. The Java syntax you discuss in this article, while proposed, was rejected long ago.

]]> By: Tony Morris http://blog.tmorris.net/java-7/#comment-105991 Tony Morris Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:05:44 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1030#comment-105991 Ken, See Scalaz for same without sacrificing the generalisation. Ken,
See Scalaz for same without sacrificing the generalisation.

]]> By: Andrew http://blog.tmorris.net/java-7/#comment-105986 Andrew Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:56:17 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1030#comment-105986 Stephen, I am not sure that I would describe the java syntax as more readable; that seems like a very subjective thing. To me ?: looks like line noise, whereas getOrElse tells me what it is doing. Stephen, I am not sure that I would describe the java syntax as more readable; that seems like a very subjective thing.

To me ?: looks like line noise, whereas getOrElse tells me what it is doing.

]]> By: Joe http://blog.tmorris.net/java-7/#comment-105946 Joe Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:32:47 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1030#comment-105946 Tony, this is not Java 7. The Java syntax you discuss in this article, while proposed, was rejected long ago. Java 7 was officially released 3 weeks ago. Not sure what the purpose is here. Tony, this is not Java 7. The Java syntax you discuss in this article, while proposed, was rejected long ago. Java 7 was officially released 3 weeks ago. Not sure what the purpose is here.

]]> By: Ken Bloom http://blog.tmorris.net/java-7/#comment-105945 Ken Bloom Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:28:37 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1030#comment-105945 The proposed Java syntax (already in Groovy)<code> a(argsa)?.b(argsb)?.c(argsc)?.d(argsd).f()</code> is totally different from <code> (a, b, c, d) => for { aa <- a(argsa) bb <- b(argsb) cc <- c(argsc) dd <- d(argsd) } yield f(aa, bb, cc, dd) </code> It's equivalent to <code> for { aa <- a(argsa) bb <- aa.b(argsb) cc <- bb.c(argsc) dd <- cc.d(argsd) }yield(dd.f()) </code> While the Java version is not as general, it does provide some useful syntactic sugar for a common use case, and it's a whole lot more concise than the Scala way of doing this. (It would be kinda nice of Scala's options supported something like this, but that would require one or more completely brand-new langauge concepts in Scala to pull it off. The proposed Java syntax (already in Groovy) a(argsa)?.b(argsb)?.c(argsc)?.d(argsd).f() is totally different from


(a, b, c, d) => for {
aa <- a(argsa)
bb <- b(argsb)
cc <- c(argsc)
dd <- d(argsd)
} yield f(aa, bb, cc, dd)

It’s equivalent to

for {
aa <- a(argsa)
bb <- aa.b(argsb)
cc <- bb.c(argsc)
dd <- cc.d(argsd)
}yield(dd.f())

While the Java version is not as general, it does provide some useful syntactic sugar for a common use case, and it’s a whole lot more concise than the Scala way of doing this. (It would be kinda nice of Scala’s options supported something like this, but that would require one or more completely brand-new langauge concepts in Scala to pull it off.

]]> By: Tony Morris http://blog.tmorris.net/java-7/#comment-105942 Tony Morris Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:58:30 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1030#comment-105942 Stephen, The Java version is not more readable than the Scala version. I had to omit all the ridiculous Java nonsense to make the point. Right, the syntax is a proposal. Stephen, The Java version is not more readable than the Scala version. I had to omit all the ridiculous Java nonsense to make the point.

Right, the syntax is a proposal.

]]> By: Derek Wyatt http://blog.tmorris.net/java-7/#comment-105936 Derek Wyatt Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:08:54 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1030#comment-105936 Thanks for pointing this stuff out, Tony. I depend on guys like you to tell me what's in Java these days now that I focus on languages like Scala and Haskell and have (hopefully) said good-bye to Java for good. Ah, were that only true, and I didn't have to earn money. :) Thanks for pointing this stuff out, Tony. I depend on guys like you to tell me what’s in Java these days now that I focus on languages like Scala and Haskell and have (hopefully) said good-bye to Java for good. Ah, were that only true, and I didn’t have to earn money. :)

]]> By: Bas de Bakker http://blog.tmorris.net/java-7/#comment-105931 Bas de Bakker Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:41:21 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1030#comment-105931 The syntax you describe is not in Java 7. It has been considered, but was rejected. See http://blogs.oracle.com/darcy/entry/project_coin_final_five The syntax you describe is not in Java 7. It has been considered, but was rejected. See http://blogs.oracle.com/darcy/entry/project_coin_final_five

]]> By: Stephen Colebourne http://blog.tmorris.net/java-7/#comment-105930 Stephen Colebourne Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:39:10 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1030#comment-105930 Perhaps you could check your facts? This syntax is not in Java 7. That said the Java syntax should be included in Java as it is in Groovy. It would be incredibly popular if it was http://blog.joda.org/2009/01/jdk-7-language-changes-everyone-votes_4547.html . Your example for ?. also makes it perfectly clear why. The "Java" version is a lot more readable than the Scala. Perhaps you could check your facts? This syntax is not in Java 7.

That said the Java syntax should be included in Java as it is in Groovy. It would be incredibly popular if it was http://blog.joda.org/2009/01/jdk-7-language-changes-everyone-votes_4547.html . Your example for ?. also makes it perfectly clear why. The “Java” version is a lot more readable than the Scala.

]]>