m.invoke() vs. m()

Reinier Zwitserloot reinier at zwitserloot.com
Mon Dec 7 08:13:29 PST 2009

Wow, Neal. If you had come to devoxx, you could have punched me in the face,
that might have been more efficient than that piece of rude, ad-hominem

The fact that I've been thinking about how to add closures to java since at
least early 2005 should if anything give me some credits in your supposed
'some of us are more equal than others' world.

Also, people who are capable of changing their opinions should be listened
to more than people who pick a side and are incapable of being swayed by
experience or logic.

Your argument is also flat out wrong. If, due to plenty of experience using
a variety of languages, as well as using java _a lot_, someone has formed a
feel for style that is better than others, than obviously such a person
should be able to explain why a certain style is better than another. Which
was my entire point: If such a person can't, then I don't think we should be
listening to that particular argument.

--Reinier Zwitserloot

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <
> reinier at zwitserloot.com> wrote:
>> Also, just to throw a wrench in the works, from a style perspective, I
>> think '.invoke' is much cleaner. Which shows exactly why style sensitivities
>> have no place in this discussion.
> I don't follow this logic.  At best that shows why the style sensitivities
> of some particular participants have no place here*.  I suspect there is a
> hidden premise in your argument that the style preferences of any one
> participant in this discussion is as important as any other's.  That all
> very democratic and egalitarian of you, but it doesn't work that way in
> practice.  Some participants may have style sensitivities that are likely to
> result in a more natural-feeling language for the majority of its users.
> Programming language design by democratic processes doesn't tend to work out
> very well.
> * You've already declared that the positions you're taking now on topics
> such as function types <
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/coin-dev/2009-November/002498.html>
> are "a rotten piece of idiocy that will ruin Java" <
> http://zwitserloot.com/2006/10/09/concise-instance-creation-expressions-dissection/>,
> and that if closures of the style currently being considered are added,
> you're switching to another language <
> http://zwitserloot.com/2006/08/26/alternatives-to-closures-java/>.  The
> other participants in this discussion at least respect their own opinions,
> and haven't publicly voiced reasons that they might undermine this effort.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/closures-dev/attachments/20091207/dfc55c48/attachment.html 

More information about the closures-dev mailing list