[Curtis Rutland]

http://mail.openjdk....ber/003936.html

Quote

After considering a number of alternatives, we decided to essentially
adopt the C# syntax.

Quote

The C# syntax is:

lambda = ArgList Arrow Body
ArgList = Identifier
| "(" Identifier [ "," Identifier ]* ")"
| "(" Type Identifier [ "," Type Identifier ]* ")"
Body = Expression
| "{" [ Statement ";" ]+ "}"

Here are some examples of lambda expressions using this syntax:

x => x + 1
(x) => x + 1
(int x) => x + 1
(int x, int y) => x + y
(x, y) => x + y
(x, y) => { System.out.printf("%d + %d = %d%n", x, y, x+y); }
() => { System.out.println("I am a Runnable"); }

[AdamSpeight2008]

Microsoft should a Java and sue them for infringing their design.

[Sergio Tapia]

Oh god I wish I could see the look on the faces of every Java dev who told me C# was inferior because it belonged to "Micro$shaft" as they put it.

Good addition to Java, C# has it and it's a god send.

[farrell2k]

Lambdas are a big confusing mess. I look at that syntax and want to avoid it at all costs.

c# is superior to Java in many ways. I especially like the fact that I can implements two interfaces with the same method names. That being said, beyond doing development for Xbox or windows phone, I see no reason to use c#, ever.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 09 September 2011 - 10:25 AM

[macosxnerd101]

Very interesting that Oracle decided to adopt the C# syntax for this. Java 8 probably won't be out for another couple years at least (especially since Java 7's official release was fairly recent), so it's not likely we'll be using this syntax in the near future.

Quote

I especially like the fact that I can implements two interfaces with the same method names.

You can do this in Java as well.

[farrell2k]

macosxnerd101, on 09 September 2011 - 05:41 PM, said:

Very interesting that Oracle decided to adopt the C# syntax for this. Java 8 probably won't be out for another couple years at least (especially since Java 7's official release was fairly recent), so it's not likely we'll be using this syntax in the near future.

Quote

I especially like the fact that I can implements two interfaces with the same method names.

You can do this in Java as well.

I am pretty sure you're wrong about that. Two separate interfaces with the same method names is too ambiguous. In c# you can explicitly refer to the method names, (Interface1.method()) whereas in Java you cannot. Unless I am completely wrong, which I usually am more often than not.

[macosxnerd101]

Proof of concept:

interface A{ void foo(); }
interface B{ void foo(); }

class C implements A, B{ 
   public void foo(){} 

}

....
A a = new C();
a.foo();

B b = new C();
b.foo();

[Curtis Rutland]

What he means is that in C# you can do this:

public class Program {
    public static void Main(string[] args) {
        var c = new C();
        (c as IA).Foo();
        (c as IB).Foo();
        Console.ReadKey();
    }
}

public interface IA {
    void Foo();
}

public interface IB {
    void Foo();
}

public class C : IA, IB {
    void IA.Foo() {
        Console.WriteLine("IA Foo");
    }

    void IB.Foo() {
        Console.WriteLine("IB Foo");
    }
}

You can explicitly implement two different methods with the same name from different interfaces.

[macosxnerd101]

Ah, so that's what he meant. My bad.

[ishkabible]

language barrier?

[farrell2k]

macosxnerd101, on 09 September 2011 - 07:33 PM, said:

Proof of concept:

interface A{ void foo(); }
interface B{ void foo(); }

class C implements A, B{ 
   public void foo(){} 

}

....
A a = new C();
a.foo();

B b = new C();
b.foo();

In this instance, is there a way for foo() to behave differently, depending on whether a.foo() or b.foo() is called?

As to not hijack this thread, this should probably be moved to Programming Help -> Java. Apologies.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 09 September 2011 - 01:34 PM

[macosxnerd101]

Not really. I misunderstood your original question. Sorry for the confusion.

[cfoley]

Good to see progress here! I hope that when Java 8 comes out with lambdas they retrofit Collections with internal iterators.

[Raynes]

farrell2k, on 09 September 2011 - 06:23 PM, said:

Lambdas are a big confusing mess. I look at that syntax and want to avoid it at all costs.

c# is superior to Java in many ways. I especially like the fact that I can implements two interfaces with the same method names. That being said, beyond doing development for Xbox or windows phone, I see no reason to use c#, ever.

Lambdas are a very high level and powerful programming tool that absolutely *no* modern programming language should be without. I highly suggest that you investigate lambdas and functional programming a bit more before making such harsh judgements. I'm certain you'll find that you can do things with them that you wouldn't have otherwise thought possible.

[Sergio Tapia]

Where would I be without lambdas? Coding like it's 1996, oh yeah baby!

Lambdas are fantastic.