Comments on: Why I think CICE is too complex for the gain

By: Anandi Hristina

Anandi Hristina — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:23:42 +0000

and i don’t know, how to make it bette. Anandi Hristina.

By: Jing Xue

Jing Xue — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:24:15 +0000

Bob,

On your first two points - I agree in general that the underlying implementation needn’t always be exposed - in most of the cases even better off not exposed. However, this particular “implementation” isn’t very well hidden in the first place due to the fact that there are extra classes created under the hood. Like I said, this has been a major confusion spot for people even as it is with anonymous classes, the obscurity of closures would only make it more confusing.

On the line break issue, it won’t be as impressive when you have more than one line in the body. I don’t think most people would like to write “new Thread({foo(); bar();}).start;”

By: Soylent Green

Soylent Green — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:51:00 +0000

Lee-Lea-Block and all the other closure guys, I still think they are basically bored. To fight being bored they invented closures. I admire many of them for the great work they did. But even those guys did mistakes in the past regarding java. Take a look at doug leas comments about the ‘old’ java memory model…So, no inerrable gods that we praise
As I have learned, from java 6 on there will be a feature removal process. If closures are going to make it, I would suggest them for immediate removal. Why do I hate closures?
Nobody realy needs closures in java! There is NO use case except one of syntactic nature. Is this feature-itis, inventing feature for the sake of feature?
Say you have a project. Say you have two programmers. A java-old-fashioned guy prefering the damn-old-anonymous-inner-class style and a newbee which is the allways-up-to-date programmer guy. Aha - a project with two syntaxes for the same purpose. Uh? would be nice to make cross code reviews. Would be nice to do quality assurance. Closure adds unnecessary complexity not only to java but to the project in may example!
If you give the chance to express one and the same thing in many different ways then those ways will be explored. And? What have you created? Do you have created “information”. No! It’s redundancy you’re going to create. And I don’t like redundancy!

I cite a guy from theserverside.com (http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=42535#219930)
“Java hasn’t yet enough rough edges to overtake C++ as the most complicated mainstream language. Joint effort is necessary to make it happen in the next release.” Nothing more to say

Cheers,
Soylent Green

By: Ricky Clarkson

Ricky Clarkson — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:15:38 +0000

It is a marked improvement. I still think new Thread({foo();}).start() is even better in terms of expressing intent. It’s not so much ‘magic’ as ‘inference’.

By: Bob Lee

Bob Lee — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:41:03 +0000

Addressing your points in order:

- The underlying implementation needn’t be obvious.
- Yes, IDEs make coding anonymous classes trivial, but this proposal is about readability more than writability.
- Yes, the local variable scoping rules are orthogonal to closures. You could write a separate proposal, but I like the context.
- As for adding line breaks to the example, it’s still a marked improvement.