Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Alternatives languages on the JVM: which one or is there no alternative?
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:07:31 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <l7jed7$222$1@dont-email.me>
References: <b61c37c4-1b86-4b63-8ed1-fa5834eb638e@googlegroups.com> <5293388a$0$15988$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <bfhsnfF1021U1@mid.individual.net> <529453d2$0$15908$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <73997663-103c-4e48-ac9b-c50e8babfaa6@googlegroups.com> <5294b061$0$15961$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <52955f0f$0$296$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <5295a669$0$15879$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <19zo5i01fjd4t.101filzjnniw.dlg@40tude.net> <52972d87$0$15919$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <i_udnRgmTbHtXgrPnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <5297cbd9$0$15882$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <16c2e66f-de41-4a63-8525-b6703837ae15@googlegroups.com> <52987501$0$15919$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <bbcf7db0-6415-4c5d-a9c0-4cf7ec6dee99@googlegroups.com> <01086072-1547-49d0-8ef6-ab6a22deb401@googlegroups.com> <529c9e1c$0$15920$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <529ca6a9$0$15992$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <bg47kaFrf3uU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 02:07:35 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5aa64ebf9a53573f97c75abba936b0e2"; logging-data="2114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194XC3rsqQvKJGTI/6awY4DMm8X9pR/Ehg="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
In-Reply-To: <bg47kaFrf3uU1@mid.individual.net>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pyY9v8v6iDIg2qUR1Ew/KclFRRY=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:26705

On 12/2/2013 12:07 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:

> Still, I don't see any hard reasons that speak against doing real
> closures.  Maybe it's just the pragmatic way, i.e. not enough resources

Have you read any of the discussion on the lambda-dev list?  Brain Goetz 
was dead-set against "real" closures.  He insisted on several occasions 
that "real" closures were broken and would not have been designed the 
way they were if computer science had known what they know today.

The main issue iirc was that he wanted the lambdas to be immutable.  If 
you go back and modify objects or fields by closing over them, then you 
no longer have an immutable operation.  Whether the risk was thread 
safty and optimization, or programmer misuse, or something else, I don't 
recall off hand, but he was pretty adamant it was a dumb idea.