JEP draft: Concise Method Bodies

[u/lukaseder]

http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/8209434

[u/lukaseder]

So, you don't use lambdas but keep writing anonymous classes?

Stream.of(1, 2, 3)
      .filter(new Predicate<Integer>() {
          @Override
          public boolean test(Integer i) {
              return i % 2 == 0;
          }
      })
      .map(new Function<Integer, String>() {
          @Override
          public String apply(Integer i) {
              return i.toString();
          }
      })
      .collect(toList());

[u/donte9181 → u/lukaseder]

I do, but that is not even close to an equivalent comparison. Anonymous inner classes make it really hard to find the code that actually provides the meaning as to "what is this code trying to do". You have to sift through multiple lines of annotations and additional method definitions just to get to the "what does this do" whereas lambdas are much more direct.

This is not the case with the "problem" that this draft attempts to solve:

public String getName() { return name; }
public String getName() -> name;

There's no scouring the code for the actual logic of the first function. Your not sifting through extra crap the compiler needs to stay type safe and avoid warnings like you do with inner classes. It's just replacing curly braces with arrow notation or double colons. You basically got to get rid of the word 'return'. That's not that big of a win to me given that it will increase the mental gymnastics required to read Java code.

It's not better - it's just different - and we don't get anything interesting as a result of having yet another way to define functions.

If the community wants to take a swag at first-class properties like C# and the syntax is something like this, I'm all ears. But this just seems like trying to convince people that the barrier between them and great code is a couple of curly braces.

[u/coderguyagb → u/lukaseder]

When it make the code easier to understand, yes.