Delete comment from: Neal Gafter's blog
Hi Neal,
I've been reading for blog for a while now, played a bit with your JSR166y reimplementation and loved it! I am of the opinion that we really should have closures for Java, as a JSR initially based on your ideas. On the topic of confusing programmers with new syntax and "exotic" (functional) programming style ?!? I really think that have closures like I saw them in your spin on JSR166y is much clearer to read. Besides, closures will mostly be used where we are currently using anonymous classes. There are only a handful of cases where "casual" programmers (those who might be confused with exotic styles...): adding Swing listeners, defining a Thread's Runnable.... In these instances, I really don't think it is more complex to read a closure. Sure, it might start to be a bit more exotic when you start dealing with <T, U, V> type method declarations, but how many developers actually need to play with the API-side of this? Most of them will use JDK-provided APIs (such as JSR166y).
Hooray for closures! In the meantime, as a Sun Campus Ambassador in Montreal, I'm evangelizing my friends to closures so that they'll be fighting with us when the JSR comes around. :-)
Keep up the good work.
Dec 13, 2007, 3:43:00 PM
Posted to What flavor of closures?