Kirill Grouchnikov's Blog

Voice your concerns about closures with this FUD generator

I am afraid deeply worry am scared am frightened am alarmed am terrified that closures are detrimental for the language make the code more error-prone make Java too hard to master are for human relationships only can be understood only by people with PhD should be banned from programming are the worst thing since they made Greedo shoot first endanger my position as an expert in JDK 1.1.6 can not be explained to a 6-year old

I am not sure am not convinced remain sceptical am rather perplexed am not certain remain undecided that closures will make code easier to read will make code easier to write solve what they aim to are all that great will bring world peace are a product of a sane human mind will be available under the one and only GPL license are good for your health

I highly doubt am concerned am hesitant that closures are readable are scalable are maintainable are debuggable are extensible are edible

Comments

• You forgot the "GR" for "glumly resigned". :-)

  Posted by: ljnelson on September 07, 2006 at 01:20 PM

• So closures are now a foregone conclusion and they do not have to be proved useful enough to Java? And so everything against them is now officially FUD?
  Seriously, I think there are two things already in Java that can be used instead of closures (or anonymous function types as might be a more correct naming): Inner classes are the obvious one, but we also have annotations. If annotations were extended so that they could be put on a block of code, voilà, we have a nice syntax for the use:
  @TimedOperation() { do your stuff }
  In fact, annotations could be used today on methods to provide these kind of capabilities, but we lack the standard annotation processor for it.
  Now the problem remains to how we define the code around the block, but taking a tip from AspectJ, this is really "around" advice, so:

  @interface (or @class or @aspect?) TimedOperation (implements @Aspect?){
  Advice around() {
  ///some code
  proceed();//do the block
  //some more code
  }

  
  Which to my mind gives a more java-like way of handling closures.

  Posted by: tobega on September 08, 2006 at 12:10 AM

• This blog entry is amusing and well done--but misleading. While FUD stands for Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, it is usually used to imply someone trying to spread those things. I have those things and would like for them to be removed. Voicing concern is very different than spreading FUD.

  Posted by: coxcu on September 08, 2006 at 07:58 AM

• Thanks for making it clear that that you want to change the closure debate to a smear campaign. Why not ask for excommunication for everyone who doesn't applaude closures?

  Posted by: ewin on September 08, 2006 at 09:37 AM

• tobega, ewin,
  Lighten up. Read my previous entry on the closures to see if i have my share of fear, uncertainty and doubt about them. This is just a friendly joke.

  Posted by: kirillcool on September 08, 2006 at 09:41 AM

• Satire is often not appreciated on the web. Despair.com was amazed that the US Patent office had awarded them a trademark for the frowny emoticon, :-(, so they issued a fake press release stating they were going to use the FBI's Carnivore program to scan the world's email and sue anyone using a frowny in a message. After getting all kinds of email and sparking a huge Slashdot thread, they issued another press release stating how people could purchase frowny licenses from their web-site for a limited price of $0 a license until their supply of frownies runs out. I've "purchased" one, and even the license is hilarious, but I'm sure there are still some technically-astute people who still don't get it. At least you are in good company.

  Posted by: tball on September 08, 2006 at 11:58 AM

• Sorry, Kirill, I did appreciate the humor, but I happened to delete my appreciative giggle when I started to give a more elaborate entry... So here it is again: hehe

  Posted by: tobega on September 09, 2006 at 01:05 PM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.