sherod wrote: > Wow. You've just summarized the last 12 months of popular topics on > the group in three lines :) > Well one side of the topics at any rate.
Realistically any closures addition would be highly contentious and far from a win-win. I'm actually for adding BGGA closures, /but/ I can see /almost/ as much downside as upside to doing so. Similarly generics really work quite well today. Reification would be nice in some cases certainly, but I'd also not give up the ability to blithely pass collections, etc, to from old code without any issues for just to get reification. If someone figures out how to do reification and allow seamless bidirectional no-cost data interchange with old libraries, great. If not, I can't get excited about bifurcating the code space for reification. Overall conservative language evolution does not equal language death. Some of us have better things to do than chase every shiny new kitchen sink :-) Now traits on the other hand... Traits would be really nice to add (if done right -- as always the devil is in the details). -- Jess Holle > On Dec 12, 5:02 am, Hairless_ape <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What the hell! No closures. Still broken generics. >> >> Ah well at least there will be invokedynamic. >> >> I'm afraid that with this, Java is dying. >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
