I think Cédric invitation to his mailing list is a good idea - I
subscribed a few days ago.
I subscribed as well. I guess we're still missing a podcast or newsfeed to
jumpstart a discussion. ;)
Kind regards
Ben
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Kevin,
do you mind sharing your preferred stack(s)? It's been almost two years
since my last dabble with Scala and whipping up small REST-Service seems
like good exercise. =)
Of course I'd be grateful for all suggestions of good REST stacks, not just
Kevin's. So if anyone else has any
Am Sonntag, 22. Juli 2012 06:52:02 UTC+2 schrieb Reinier Zwitserloot:
My personal opinion on TCO is that it is an academic boondoggle that
nobody needs and only functional junkies care about, but then I'm tempering
that rather arrogant opinion based on the fact that I've never managed to
Nov 2011 21:31:37 +0100, Ben Schulz ya...@gmx.de wrote:
Well, that's not quite true. Static final fields actually are
final[1].
I didn't check the specs... but are you sure? Because people tend to
consider them unmodifiable also by reflection just because they are
inlined by the compiler
Well, that's not quite true. Static final fields actually are
final[1]. That means one could create an immutable object by
generating a class and stuffing the values in static fields. Obviously
that's not a viable route to take, but I hear there are bonus points
to be had.. :D
With kind regards
On 12 Sep., 21:32, clay claytonw...@gmail.com wrote:
A closure is when you define a function that closes over the local
environment from which the new function is defined and can access
local variables of that defining scope.
Not just local variables, anything denotable from the enclosing
Forgot the reference, sorry: http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/
2008/02/08/w3c_s_excessive_dtd_traffic/
On 2 Jul., 22:22, Ben Schulz ya...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2 Jul., 21:48, Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com wrote:
I have no idea why this is happening, but it's probably not unique.
Definetely
Use a ProcessBuilder, it let's you be much more explicit about your
intentions and consequently tends to work as intended.
With kind regards
Ben
On 25 Jun., 19:54, Memo gamali...@hotmail.com wrote:
I can't get runtime.exec to execute a program in Java. I am trying to
execute a bat file. I read
To answer the original question: No there is no such optimization.
Theoretically it can be optimized if the JIT can prove that the
object's identity is irrelevant (necessary due to[1]). Since you need
escape analysis for that, the JIT might as well just determine that
the object does not escape
Time consuming work should not be done on the EDT; look into
SwingWorker.
With kind regards
Ben
On 9 Feb., 21:15, Eric e.d.program...@gmail.com wrote:
Odd that a request on Google Groups about which group to try for help
with Java got several responses all pointing to other websites.
In the
So far I'm indifferent to this news because it does not seem to affect
anyone. I think what you're referring to as the effect on video
professionals is described in the article as follows:
In addition, I know that if your encoding facilities are working at
or near capacity, you'll have to buy
So yes, LSP really *does* apply here.
Does it though? Given that one can't substitute one value of primitive
type for one of another type without it being subject to conversion
(explicit or not) such a substitution can't entail changes to program
properties in a way relevant to LSP.
Then again
the difference between 1.4 and 6 in your example is therefore probably due
to some difference in how it initializes the implicit reference to the outer
final variable
Pre-JVMS2 the first thing an instance initialization method had to do
was call another instance initialization method [1]; in
On 12 Okt., 11:19, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote:
Where are the uninitialised values being exposed?
Let me quote my first response:
No[t] a big deal because nobody can observe this state, however, once one
gets into initializing immutable object graphs things get very hairy very
(I did not want to take over the other thread as I don't believe using
Scala case classes from Java is a solution to the posed problem.)
I've dabbled in Scala a bit but so far I've stayed away from using
named constructor parameters because it seems there is no way to
override the getters/setters
On 31 Aug., 21:04, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote:
Allowing both declaration-site and call-site
variance would be hideously complicated!
Do you want to retract that? :)
With kind regards
Ben
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups The
Java
Isn't this just as slippery a slope? Why are you not advocating Coq or
some other dependently typed language? Surely all the developers the
world really needs are smart enough to learn them and be productive
with them?
With kind regards
Ben
On 26 Aug., 21:28, Kevin Wright
On 26 Aug., 23:23, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote:
If `newBuilder` was a pure function, then it really wouldn't
matter if `left` and `right` were assigned the same value, or the result of
two subsequent evocations of `newBuilder`
That's only true in a referentially transparent
This is actually horribly put. What I mean is that object identity
(which Scala inherits from the JVM) tends to break referential
transparency because two invocations (in the general case) return
different instances of the same value.
With kind regards
Ben
On 26 Aug., 23:57, Ben Schulz ya
Sure, how about this:
var y = -1; // why the initialization?? so complicated
if(x 5)
y = x;
else
y = 5;
versus
final int y; // ahh, definite assignment, so simple (*)
if (x 5) {
y = x;
} else {
y = 5;
}
Then there's the security aspect.
private[yourscopehere] def getRootAccess() = {
that Java is a tiny bit more verbose, and the
Java code would need extra maintenance if you wanted to change x to be e.g.
a double.
On 25 August 2010 11:05, Ben Schulz ya...@gmx.net wrote:
Sure, how about this:
var y = -1; // why the initialization?? so complicated
if(x 5)
y = x
On 9 Aug., 21:23, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote:
My goodness, what a tangled web you weave...
You're mutating an object AND using the return value at the same time
and you're doing it twice, in the same expression!
It still disproves your statement.
Then to add insult to
On 10 Aug., 13:04, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely, but make sure you've taken a good look before making judgements
based on perception.
I was under the impression that this discussions is not about me, but
about the masses; and as should be clear from various political
On 9 Aug., 11:02, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote:
any operator ending with a `:` is also right associative. So
x :: someList
is equivalent to someList.::(x)
I think you just proved Fabrizio's point (and this is a one-line
example). ;)
With kind regards
Ben
--
You received this
On 9 Aug., 11:47, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Ben Schulz ya...@gmx.net wrote:
On 9 Aug., 11:02, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote:
any operator ending with a `:` is also right associative. So
x :: someList
is equivalent
On 9 Aug., 13:50, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no implicit conversion here
just a list, with a :: method, taking x as an argument
I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to make a point about the general
case and how operator overloading is simple and intuitive in the
On 9 Aug., 17:02, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Java has left-to-right evaluation, except when it doesn't
x + y * z is equivalent to x.+(y.*(z)) NOT (x.+(y)).*(z)
x() + y() * z() is still evaluated as
invoke x
invoke y
invoke z
mul
add
it has nothing to do with operator
There is a difference between perceived complexity and actual
complexity. Some tasks the human mind excels in and we intuitively
know the correct answer. Java (mostly) stays in this domain which
reduces the perceived complexity, even though the actual complexity
(due to baggage and
I think the previously mentioned combining sequences would disqualify
both toLowerCase and toUpperCase (as well as a -reduce of a per-
char-|| of both). In any case, really interesting thread, thanks for
pointing it out.
With kind regards
Ben
On 8 Aug., 00:27, Reinier Zwitserloot
On 29 Jul., 10:15, Kirk kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com wrote:
Nonsense.. :-) You may not understand what is going on but that doesn't mean
it's not deterministic, very very deterministic.
A small excerpt from Josh Bloch's Mind the Semantic Gap[1]:
[W]hen it does come time to optimize, the process
at the end. Need I
elaborate on how that makes a difference?
With kind regards
Ben
On 9 Jun., 07:24, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.com wrote:
The very title of this thread is OS-X - the abandoned platform. If
only the world ran on cognitive dissonance.
On Jun 8, 10:44 pm, Ben Schulz ya
On 8 Jun., 21:10, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.com wrote:
However, some hyperbole lovers claimed mac os x was now abandonware,
and when people say silly things I feel compelled to call them on it.
Just FYI, you're the only person in the entire thread to use the word
abondonware -- up until
On 28 Mai, 03:04, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.com wrote:
What is this, a terrorist interrogation? Stop being flippant.
Wow! Just wow.
What do you mean with declaration site variance then?
When declaring a type with a type parameter T that only appears in co/
contravariant position you
One of the key differences between mutable and immutable records is
how far you can take (typesafe) initialization. Mutability easily
allows for circularity while immutablity does not or only to a very
limited degree http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Tying_the_Knot. On
the other hand this freedom
See the (then) new section 17.4 which defines Java's memory model. The
happens-before order (§17.5.4) should be of particular interest to
you.
With kind regards
Ben
On 27 Feb., 19:40, agile java agile.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all:
I have a doubt about the JLS(Java Language Sepcification)
My guess is that Java IO takes advantage of any OS optimizations there
are, on another OS there may be a per-file-pointer cache or something.
That would obviously invalidate your assumptions. I suggest you look
into using asynchronous I/O which will get rid of any multiple-reader-
bottlenecks.
I'll quote Reinier from the UML-plugin-thread:
Jesus, Tim. I just finished yelling at some other paranoid nutcase for
blaming this on sun/oracle. Sit down, and listen.
So, if you're still concerned, well, I really can't help you.
With kind regards
Ben
On 12 Dez., 01:12, kibitzer
Hello JItesh,
this is a Firefox issue, not a Java related one. Either way, the
solution is to drop leading whitespaces from your response.
With kind regards
Ben
On 1 Nov., 16:39, jitesh dundas jbdun...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi friends,
I am getting this error on doing a post(using the code
You have written an excellent
post:http://blogs.sun.com/abuckley/en_US/entry/versioning_in_the_java_plat...,
but I don’t see the relevance to the requested source proposal. No one
is asking you to solve the issues you raise. All people are asking is
that the source statement behaves like
Youv'e got to write IDE support for this. Building this new language
requires also building an IDE plugin that understands it.
And that probably explains why it hasn't been done before, a chicken
and egg problem.
Ah, but it has been done before.
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3287
I'm not sure why you'd have to use your mouse. Everything I'm
imagining would be done in the IDE with keystrokes.
Because the semantic differences achievable by changing just a few
characters is so vast that you will have a hard time coming up with
shortcuts for every one of them. Ultimately
Mind my asking what you gain? Preferably something that does not fall
into the - arguably subjective - category of esthetics? Because if you
got nothing, then what's wrong with adding the braces? I find they
look dashing. Also they let me see - at a glance - whether it's a
block or a line that's
So, quick question - wouldn't be possible to fit another small language
change for JDK 7 - that is, allowing annotating an inner block of code?
I refer you to JSR 308, section D.2 of the specification http://
types.cs.washington.edu/jsr308/specification/java-annotation-
The one trick is to realize that the safe version is actually the more
specific one. If you think of the exception in terms of the type union
(not accurate, but a decent analogy), then Unsafe.method() returns
void|IOException while Safe.method() returns void, which is a more
specific type,
On 19 Aug., 20:45, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.com wrote:
disjoint types are structural in that you weaken the namespacing of
members.
Members are only namespaced by virtue of their container. So lets say
I do this (I apologize in advance for the cliché factor of this
example):
I'd much rather have a closure proposal where a method that takes a
closure that has tennant's correspondence principle is strictly
enforced by the compiler to keep the closure stack-safe. In other
words, legal operations are:
1. Running the closure,
2. Grabbing info off of the closure
I really like the idea of having the anonymous unions/joins and
considering that the resulting type system should be a complete lattice
they sound manageable to me -- both for the compiler and the human
reader. Does anyone know reasons why no language seems to have this feature?
I'm not much
| Integer foo(Boolean flag) {
if (flag) return 42;
else return hello;
}
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Ben Schulz ya...@gmx.net wrote:
I'm not much of a PLTist, but I'm guessing the reason uions don't make
it into general purpose, object oriented languages is that they're
inherently
Obviously you gained type safety,
Isn't that kinda the point of a type system? :-)
I suppose, but for me it's more about why I should write down the
types. If we asked Gilad Bracha, he'd probably say it's a bad idea
because they restrain your thinking. Me, I say it's good because the
So operator overloading is bad because people have HR problems?
Why stop at operator overloading? To hell with all safe guards.. No
more speed limits or safty belts; let's everyone just drive
reasonably. And what's with architects and statics? It'll hold.
Don't blame the gun, blame the
So the morale of the story is: If you have an HR problem, deal with it -
educate them, start unit testing, start to have code reviews etc.
And that's exactly the point I was trying to make. If there were no
speedlimits, how would you educate people to drive at a reasonable
speed? It's a
On 13 Aug., 13:43, Casper Bang casper.b...@gmail.com wrote:
With all due respect, operator overloading in Fan is an entirely
different, much less scary beast than the infamous C++ implementation
which everyone seems to have in mind. I'm not much for guns, but to
continue gun metaphor: Python
There's one safeguard on roads that actually saves lives: Driving
lessons. If you put somebody behind the wheel of a car, they can kill
people at the drop of a hat, and no amount of laws are going to stop
this from being true. You get that license because the state
recognizes that they are
On 14 Aug., 00:17, Eric erjab...@gmail.com wrote:
I do sometimes wish for operator overloading and people encoding
their Java source files in UTF-8 so that operators like !=, =, and =
could be written in Unicode as U+2260 NOT EQUAL TO, U+2264
LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO, and U+2265 GREATER THAN OR
On 14 Aug., 04:51, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.com wrote:
On the contrary. It's a statistical fallacy that leads to a lot of
wasted effort [...]
I like how you begin the paragraph On the contrary as if disagreeing
with anything I said, insinuating I made the statistical fallacy you
are
On 1 Aug., 11:42, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote:
Actually removing things will break a substantial amount of software in
most cases and fragment the Java community. Simply filtering out cruft
and moving it to legacy compatibility modules where possible gives
almost all the benefits of
I stumbled across some of the information inquired after on the
credits page http://projectlombok.org/credits.html. Specifically, it
says that NetBeans integration is being worked on and that the spi
project http://code.google.com/p/spi/ can be used to add ones own
transformations. I'm sure
I'm going to add my thanks and say that if you don't enjoy doing the
podcast anymore, by all means: Stop! If you don't enjoy doing it, I
can't enjoy listening to it. That said, I really enjoyed the listener
feedback episode. ;)
Weeeweeewee
Ben
On 22 Jul., 13:51, kirk kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com wrote:
If only finalize() would be reliable.
finalize is reliable, you just have to understand how it's implemented.
I'm pretty sure that a JVM may never reclaim any memory, obviously not
a very viable strategy, but it does imply that
There's this joke; I think Subversion's Ben Collins-Sussman came up
with it. It goes the world is full of jerks, and the web makes it
seems like they're all next door. So I wonder, why would anyone want
to live on the web?
With kind regards
Ben
Looking at JavaFX the story there is completely different. I had to
write a lot of property binding code in C# lately (would have been the
same in Java I guess) and seeing that all done with the little keyword
bind just blows my mind.
I agree, it's a really cool feature to have in a language
On 7 Jul., 22:03, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.com wrote:
What I would like to see:
private @Getter int x = 5;
I don't really need the C# feature where you can write the getter on
location; most getters just return the value, and as long as the API
works via a getFoo() call (and not
On 6 Jul., 11:28, Martin Wildam mwil...@gmail.com wrote:
In several podcasts the future of the Java language is discussed.
People look at new(er) languages like Scala, Ruby, Groovy etc. And
people argue that the Java language is not moving forward.
A new general purpose language is like a
On 4 Jul., 21:43, Hairless_ape gantra...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone still using IE6 deserve to be dick walled.
And I thought you had matured or moved on when the interview with Rod
Johnson went by without comment. Ah, well..
With kind regards
Ben
Does anybody know what I have to do to have Google index it ? It doesn't
make much sense in maintaining a code sample site if nobody can find it...
:-)
How long has it been up? I'm pretty sure that being indexed takes a
while initially and as your page rank gets higher your site is
reindexed
You are talking about how to fix Java, not what a new language should do
;-) But I agree: creating a new API for collections seems a worthwhile
effort in the Java world. Maybe something with (fake) closures, too.
I too should have been more clear. If there was a new language with
JSR308-like
Will it even be possible to replace java
or are we at the point where replacing java would be just too much work and
too costly?
I think a language could back into replacing Java, just the way
Peter described: By compelling library writers to switch first.
With kind regards
Ben
Concurrency is one of the more simple, academic issues
What are you doing? Do you wanna.. tempt the wrath of the whatever
from high atop the thing? :D
Concurrency is many things, simple ain't one of them. That's the very
reason academia is *still* (60 years(?) later) trying to solve it.
(...) while I personally believe the collections API is a pile
of dung from a conceptual point of view, it is an existing standard with
decent implementations. (...)
I agree, but the collections library I would like to have would
comprise so many interfaces that most developers would be
Are you thinking of the drag and drop which is currently NOT supported
by HTML5?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ#t=16m16s
It does not matter either way, because by the time wave is done, all
vendors will have an HTML5-ready version. I'm pretty sure that 95% of
the people will upgrade
NB: For what it's worth, I suggested an elegant workaround for these
issues for project coin: allow a method to declare sneakyThrows in
addition to throws. The *ONLY* difference between throws and
sneakyThrows is that sneakyThrows is *NOT* part of the method
signature. e.g. if you
On 30 Apr., 18:22, Ryan Waterer aguitadel...@gmail.com wrote:
I heard from a friend, who heard it from her uncle's second cousin's niece
who heard it from a stranger on the street that EMACs has caused more
unintentional deaths than any other IDE in existence. :-)
Yeah, well.. with great
When folks are arguing over which language features need to be in java, I
can't help but think Why Bother? Just use Scala (as was coined by Alex
Cruise). My only wish is for a standard closure-like collections library
that all the other languages for the JVM can design to, and therefore
I don't think the proposal is bad, but you still have to define what a
tuple is. For instance, I really hope this would still be valid code:
Object o = (, 1); // Object's famous top type semantics*
Anyways, I really think this should go farther than Java The Language,
but -- similar to Neil
I could kick myself, it's Neal, not Neil -- sorry.
With kind regards
Ben
On 17 Feb., 22:52, Ben Schulz ya...@gmx.net wrote:
I don't think the proposal is bad, but you still have to define what a
tuple is. For instance, I really hope this would still be valid code:
Object o = (, 1
Tennent's Correspondence Principle means that you always can create a
function that can replace an expression and it always means the same
thing.
Mikael,
that's awkwardly phrased, but correct. However, it has nothing to do
with Java not being a functional language. I can only imagine the
That's a rather low-level for a use case.
The principal point of closures is to be able to abstract control
flow. If you are using closures and require a long jump, then it seems
to me that you have a refactoring opportunity.
Tom,
I disagree. Returning from inside an
abstractions
and inline closures I concede that it eliminates a lot of the
complexity.)
With kind regards
Ben
Stephen
On Jan 16, 12:24 pm, Ben Schulz ya...@gmx.net wrote:
using(closeable, Block() {
// old code
someMap.get(this); // ouch
// more old code
});
In a pure language
Heh? Breaking out of/returning from within loops, I thought that's
what's being discussed??
Reinier: The second difference should be that CICE violates Tennent's
Correspondence Principle while BGGA does not. That is not only more
concise, it is also more accurate.
With kind regards
Ben
On 15
Scala does not have extensive auto-casting, unless you tell it to. I
can think of exactly three dubious implicit defs that Scala forces on
you by default. They are all in fairly remote corners of the language,
so it's unlikely most users will have run into problems with them.
More
to a page regarding PrintAssembly:
http://wikis.sun.com/display/HotSpotInternals/PrintAssembly
With kind regards
Ben
On 6 Dez., 09:47, Ben Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's definitely a HotSpot bug (and a really cool one, I think). My
best guess: HotSpot decides that the loop is a NOP (more
81 matches
Mail list logo
