Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #20875

Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final?

Path csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final?
Date Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:33:45 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Lines 28
Message-ID <pk7er9-i4j.ln1@s.simpson148.btinternet.com> (permalink)
References <c885bedb-977c-49b4-a10a-b9cdd3df1dd9@googlegroups.com> <m0sdr9-0tg.ln1@s.simpson148.btinternet.com> <9f030e71-96ab-4ead-9690-4369f4a19aa9@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
Injection-Info mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0d771e3708e29ef01409ed69429633ae"; logging-data="25702"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/H6mDWUQz8yoKIjI8orp/RC3/eH4X/H6M="
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
In-Reply-To <9f030e71-96ab-4ead-9690-4369f4a19aa9@googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock sha1:eFMoPRVBXUxIFDNFnfNlLbcvrkI=
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:20875

Show key headers only | View raw


On 02/01/13 15:08, jeti789@web.de wrote:
> Anyhow, this news does [not] really put a smile on my face. Guess it's really time to look for another JVM-based language like Groovy or Scala ;-).

For your particular case:

   List<Integer> ints = ...;
   int sum = 0;
   ints.forEach(i -> { sum += i; });

...the recommended way is to use something like:

   int sum = ints.reduce(0, (x, y) -> x + y);

...which is more parallel-friendly.  Of course, if you don't care about 
the parallelism, it's simply:

   int sum = 0;
   for (int i : ints)
     sum += i;

I'm sure you're just using this example to explore what's available, and 
I think it would be a mistake to discard Java based on it.  So is there 
a more sophisticated case you were hoping would improve with lambdas?


-- 
ss at comp dot lancs dot ac dot uk

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? jeti789@web.de - 2013-01-02 07:08 -0800
  Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? jeti789@web.de - 2013-01-02 07:52 -0800
  Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2013-01-02 17:33 +0000
    Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Saxo <jeti789@web.de> - 2013-01-02 11:31 -0800
      Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-02 12:52 -0800
        Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-01-02 20:58 -0400
          Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-02 17:40 -0800
            Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-01-03 20:43 -0400
        Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Saxo <jeti789@web.de> - 2013-01-02 23:44 -0800
          Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2013-01-03 07:57 -0800
            Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-03 13:22 -0800
              Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2013-01-03 16:14 -0800
      Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2013-01-02 21:46 +0000
        Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-02 17:35 -0800
        Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Saxo <jeti789@web.de> - 2013-01-03 02:13 -0800
          Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Saxo <jeti789@web.de> - 2013-01-03 06:45 -0800
            Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2013-01-04 21:32 +0000
              Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-04 14:38 -0800
                Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2013-01-04 23:45 +0000
                Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-04 17:24 -0800
                Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2013-01-05 13:20 +0000
              Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Saxo <jeti789@web.de> - 2013-01-05 01:50 -0800
                Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2013-01-05 11:21 +0000
                Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Saxo <jeti789@web.de> - 2013-01-05 04:27 -0800
                Re: Why is that in JDK8: value used in lambda expression shuld be effectively final? Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2013-01-05 12:58 +0000

csiph-web