Yeah type erasure generics in Java are something of a pain, I did see your comments about Sink<Quad> and Sink<Triple> when looking at the StreamRDF code the other week :((
Just to rub salt in the would .Net has generics that allow this kind of thing Rob On 1/21/13 4:09 PM, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 21/01/13 10:43, Rob Vesse wrote: >> As the notional representative for .Net developers on this list I kinda >> feel insulted that you wouldn't consider C# which has had lambdas in the >> core language for 5 years now to be a mainstream language! ;-) >> >> I don't think lambdas necessarily require a rethink of the API, often >>they >> can be used to great effect to simplify code behind the scenes. Of >>course >> it depends how Java goes about adding lambdas, if they do it anything >>like >> .Net did then implementing certain interfaces automatically provides end >> users with the ability to apply lambdas with minimal effort on the part >>of >> the API developer. >> >> Rob > >AIUI Java lambdas do automatically work with "function interfaces" (i.e. >one method interfaces) and remove the bulk of anon inner class >declarations (yea!). I'm still trying to get to grips what effect >default methods will have on style and design. > >But they are not closures/delegates are they? While you don't have to >write the word "final" on variables, it still works that way. > >Java 9 has reification (not that one!), tail calls and continuations, + >Jigsaw(!!) ... all maybe and all way-off. Jam the day after tomorrow. > >C# is still ahead. > >(and I wanted generics reification recently to have Sink<Triple> and >Sink<Quad> on the same class ... :-() > > Andy > >> >> >> On 1/17/13 7:46 PM, "Simon Helsen" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ah yes, lambdas. Never thought I would see the day where I would be >>>able >>> to use syntactic closures in a mainstream language. I am saying this >>>as a >>> former functional language developer. (I never considered Smalltalk a >>> mainstream language, but to be fair it used to have blocks). I agree >>>they >>> would be an opportunity to rethink the API >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: >>> Damian Steer <[email protected]> >>> To: >>> [email protected], >>> Date: >>> 01/17/2013 02:37 PM >>> Subject: >>> Re: Java6 end of life >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17 Jan 2013, at 09:37, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> FYI >>>> >>>> Java 6 end-of-life is approaching. >>>> >>>> End of public updates is next month (Feb 2013). >>>> End of public updates for Java7 is currently July 2014. >>>> Java8 is scheduled for Sept 2013 (and feature complete this month) >>>> >>>> Jena 2.10 is the next release. >>>> >>>> Thoughts on migration? >>> >>> We obviously hope people deploy jena on vendor supported java stacks, >>>but >>> I don't see java 6 use falling rapidly. >>> >>> So are there other reasons to move? There are some reasonable useful >>> language changes, but nothing that compelling. For jena users I imagine >>> try with resources support would be great, and that (annoyingly) would >>> mean a change to 7 on our side (AutoCloseable is jdk 7+). >>> >>> Besides that the new nio stuff, particularly file paths, is great but >>>not >>> especially relevant to jena. >>> >>> Java 8, otoh, is more significant. Lambdas might provide an opportunity >>> to >>> rethink the API. As I understand it some lambda support might not >>>require >>> moving to java 8 -- simply accept single method interfaces and >>>functions >>> will work -- but there's plenty of JDK changes that we might like to >>>use. >>> >>> Damian >>> >>> >> >
