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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26728 > unrolled thread

Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Sebastian <news@seyweiler.dyndns.org> - 2013-12-04 20:07 +0100
    Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Sven Köhler <remove-sven.koehler@gmail.com> - 2013-12-04 22:27 +0200
      Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Patrick Roemer <sangamon@netcologne.de> - 2013-12-05 00:38 +0100
      Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2013-12-04 23:45 +0000
    Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-12-06 13:28 -0800
      Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-12-14 16:46 -0500
    Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-12-14 03:13 -0400
      Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2013-12-14 12:03 +0000
        Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-12-14 17:02 -0500
          Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-12-15 14:33 -0400
      Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-12-14 17:00 -0500
        Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-12-15 15:05 -0400
          Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-17 20:09 +0100
            Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-12-20 22:28 -0400
              Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes lipska the kat <"lipskathekat at yahoo dot co dot uk"> - 2013-12-21 11:54 +0000
                Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-12-21 18:27 +0100
                  Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes lipska the kat <"lipskathekat at yahoo dot co dot uk"> - 2013-12-21 18:23 +0000
                    Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Tim Slattery <tim@risingdove.com> - 2013-12-21 14:56 -0500
                      Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes lipska the kat <"lipskathekat at yahoo dot co dot uk"> - 2013-12-21 20:10 +0000
                      Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes lipska the kat <"lipskathekat at yahoo dot co dot uk"> - 2013-12-21 21:18 +0000
                Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-12-21 14:52 -0400
                  Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes lipska the kat <"lipskathekat at yahoo dot co dot uk"> - 2013-12-21 19:35 +0000
                    Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-12-21 19:34 -0400
                    Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes leif.roar@invalid.com (Leif Roar Moldskred) - 2013-12-22 05:02 -0600
                      Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes lipska the kat <"lipskathekat at yahoo dot co dot uk"> - 2013-12-22 11:12 +0000
                      Re: Java 8 closures vs. anonymous inner classes Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-22 21:24 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#27021

On 12/21/2013 07:54 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 21/12/13 02:28, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 12/17/2013 03:09 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
>>> In article <g4nru.546685$nC5.145367@fx06.iad>, Arved Sandstrom
>>> (asandstrom2@eastlink.ca) says...
>>>
>>>> No aspersion on the M-F 9-5 programmers, Arne. But by definition M-F
>>>> 9-5
>>>> programmers have made a decision - not something I will heavily
>>>> criticize - to confine their work to work hours, and keep their free
>>>> time for family and leisure. As such they don't spend nearly as much
>>>> time on off-hours professional education (if any), and we all know that
>>>> work hours don't lend themselves to professional education either.
>>>
>>> To put it bluntly, this is nonsense. You can't generalize like that.
>>
>> Sure I can generalize like that. When I refer to a programmer as a M-F
>> 9-5 programmer, it's not a slur, it's a straightforward definition of a
>> programmer who only practices his trade M-F 9-5.
>
> <snip>
>
> Who works 9-5?
>
> I never had a job where I worked 9-5
>
> 8-6 minimum plus any unpaid overtime required to get the job done by
> release date. Then there are the nights (or small part thereof) spent in
> the company flat sleeping on the floor because some suit said we could
> do so and so by such and such and now we are working until we drop while
> he sleeps at home with his wife, or mistress.
>
> Then there's the time spent crammed up against some herbert who could do
> with a bath, on an overcrowded train, waiting for the upline to become
> available and swotting up for the latest Java certification.
>
> Or spending your weekends getting your head around some shitty new
> framework that some twat decided was the latest greatest waste of time
> that would look good on his CV, whilst your kids are growing up and you
> are missing the best time of their lives.
>
> Or trying to learn some pointlessly complicated XML at 11.00pm on a
> weeknight, or ... or ... or ...
>
> 9-5 developers?
> No such thing.
>
>
Then you've certainly not ever been in a union, for starters. :-)

And you've evidently never worked in a private sector company (like IBM 
or Oracle or Microsoft, for example, or well-established local software 
consultancies with lucrative long-term contracts) where usually the only 
reason you work outside hours is because you're self-motivated, not 
because anyone required you to do so.

For what it's worth, I wasn't referring to occasional "incompetency" 
time. As in, some manager f**ks up, and you kill a weekend and some 
evenings to repair his mistake. Even union people have to do 
that...although they get overtime. I meant independent un-coerced 
decisions to sacrifice family time or personal recreational 
opportunities in order to swot up on SOA, and suchlike. Not as many 
people do that as you may think. And they may be mentally healthier for it.

AHS
-- 
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign:
that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
-- Jonathan Swift

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27023

On 21/12/13 18:52, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 12/21/2013 07:54 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 21/12/13 02:28, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2013 03:09 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
>>>> In article <g4nru.546685$nC5.145367@fx06.iad>, Arved Sandstrom
>>>> (asandstrom2@eastlink.ca) says...
>>>>
>>>>> No aspersion on the M-F 9-5 programmers, Arne. But by definition M-F
>>>>> 9-5
>>>>> programmers have made a decision - not something I will heavily
>>>>> criticize - to confine their work to work hours, and keep their free
>>>>> time for family and leisure. As such they don't spend nearly as much
>>>>> time on off-hours professional education (if any), and we all know
>>>>> that
>>>>> work hours don't lend themselves to professional education either.
>>>>
>>>> To put it bluntly, this is nonsense. You can't generalize like that.
>>>
>>> Sure I can generalize like that. When I refer to a programmer as a M-F
>>> 9-5 programmer, it's not a slur, it's a straightforward definition of a
>>> programmer who only practices his trade M-F 9-5.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Who works 9-5?

<snip>

>> 9-5 developers?
>> No such thing.
>>
>>
> Then you've certainly not ever been in a union, for starters. :-)
>
> And you've evidently never worked in a private sector company (like IBM
> or Oracle or Microsoft, for example, or well-established local software
> consultancies with lucrative long-term contracts) where usually the only
> reason you work outside hours is because you're self-motivated, not
> because anyone required you to do so.

I did work for a large company once. Company car, company mobile, 
company laptop ... multiple layers of management, bored stiff.

Start-ups was my thing. Design, prototype, implement, launch, get bored, 
move on.

How can you be a developer without being self-motivated?



-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer,
treacherous feline and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
GNU/Linux user #560883 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27033

On 12/21/2013 03:35 PM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 21/12/13 18:52, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 12/21/2013 07:54 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> On 21/12/13 02:28, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/2013 03:09 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
>>>>> In article <g4nru.546685$nC5.145367@fx06.iad>, Arved Sandstrom
>>>>> (asandstrom2@eastlink.ca) says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> No aspersion on the M-F 9-5 programmers, Arne. But by definition M-F
>>>>>> 9-5
>>>>>> programmers have made a decision - not something I will heavily
>>>>>> criticize - to confine their work to work hours, and keep their free
>>>>>> time for family and leisure. As such they don't spend nearly as much
>>>>>> time on off-hours professional education (if any), and we all know
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> work hours don't lend themselves to professional education either.
>>>>>
>>>>> To put it bluntly, this is nonsense. You can't generalize like that.
>>>>
>>>> Sure I can generalize like that. When I refer to a programmer as a M-F
>>>> 9-5 programmer, it's not a slur, it's a straightforward definition of a
>>>> programmer who only practices his trade M-F 9-5.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Who works 9-5?
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 9-5 developers?
>>> No such thing.
>>>
>>>
>> Then you've certainly not ever been in a union, for starters. :-)
>>
>> And you've evidently never worked in a private sector company (like IBM
>> or Oracle or Microsoft, for example, or well-established local software
>> consultancies with lucrative long-term contracts) where usually the only
>> reason you work outside hours is because you're self-motivated, not
>> because anyone required you to do so.
>
> I did work for a large company once. Company car, company mobile,
> company laptop ... multiple layers of management, bored stiff.
>
> Start-ups was my thing. Design, prototype, implement, launch, get bored,
> move on.
>
> How can you be a developer without being self-motivated?
>

Hey, I'm with you here. Software development for me is not just a job, 
and my bookshelves, professional activities, and the occasional 
irritation of my wife prove it. Actually, the fact that I have been in 
this NG so long must mean something...seeing as how way less than one 
hundredth of one percent of Java developers engage in earnest discourse 
in Usenet Java programming groups. :-)

I'm not quite at the startup stage anymore...I've been through two that 
failed terribly, and several others that have survived but are probably 
not poised for IPOs or buyouts by IBM. You get to a certain age and you 
enjoy a bit of stability.

AHS
-- 
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign:
that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
-- Jonathan Swift

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27038

lipska the kat <"lipskathekat at yahoo dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> 
> Start-ups was my thing. Design, prototype, implement, launch, get bored, 
> move on.
> 
> How can you be a developer without being self-motivated?
> 

Simple: my employer motivates me by giving me money in exchange for work.
It works quite well.

-- 
Leif Roar Moldskred

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27040

On 22/12/13 11:02, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
> lipska the kat <"lipskathekat at yahoo dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>
>> Start-ups was my thing. Design, prototype, implement, launch, get bored,
>> move on.
>>
>> How can you be a developer without being self-motivated?
>>
>
> Simple: my employer motivates me by giving me money in exchange for work.
> It works quite well.

Yea well the work was the thing for me, the money was always secondary.


-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer,
treacherous feline and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
GNU/Linux user #560883 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27046

In article <Bq2dnaBEhbMzWyvPnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Leif Roar 
Moldskred (leif.roar@invalid.com) says...

> > Start-ups was my thing. Design, prototype, implement, launch, get 
bored, 
> > move on.
> > 
> > How can you be a developer without being self-motivated?
> > 
> 
> Simple: my employer motivates me by giving me money in exchange for work.
> It works quite well.

I've had a contract with some company that could double or quadruple the 
money they gave me back in the days for a new project, I would turn down 
the offer anyway, without any regret. Money as motivation clearly has 
its limits. Sometimes it's better to have less and feel you're in the 
right place instead.

kind regards,

-- 
..Alesi's problem was that the back of the car was jumping up and down 
dangerously - and I can assure you from having been teammate to 
Jean Alesi and knowing what kind of cars that he can pull up with, 
when Jean Alesi says that a car is dangerous - it is. [Jonathan Palmer]

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web