@opinali, "the major point of debate is whether Java's closures (with or without Java 8's lambdas) are 'good enough'"
That's an important issue, but I want something less than that: I want people to communicate their thoughts and viewpoints using technically meaningful language. The Java Posse have repeatedly said "Java doesn't have closures", "Scala is basically Java with closures", "Java really needs closures". People are basically misusing the word closure to represent a variety of different issues and language features. My point is that you should use correct language so we can understand each other. If you think Java is terrible because it doesn't have first class functions or continuations, say that rather than use your own personal definition of the word "closure" and expect everyone to know what you are talking about. I think you, I, and most people in this thread have come to a reasonable consensus: Java absolutely has a limited but useful implementation of closures that is widely used. Moving forward, Java sorely needs to be improved in a variety of ways. That's a much bigger topic but for starters Java needs better closures and they should be married with first class functions and a better syntax for anonymous functions. Java should also have better support for side-effect immutable programming and have a high quality persistent immutable data collection library (guava has constant read only collections but not persistent immutable collections like Scala does). -- 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.
