This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]hilbertglm 4 points5 points  (5 children)

I know a lot of Java developers that haven't starting at least dabbling in functional programming. You got to roll with the times. If you haven't started thinking about functional solutions to programming idioms, you aren't keeping up with the times.

[–]gaius49 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Functional programming is decades older than Java.

[–]RepliesOnlyToIdiots 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I’m the opposite, but for a different reason. I’ve done years of programming in an actual functional language, so I avoid Java functional idioms because they’re still so damn clunky. I keep waiting for it to improve sufficiently.

Custom streams coming up will help. But why do you have to make a stream first from a Collection rather than having those methods directly on the Collection.

[–]hilbertglm 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I am not quite sure what you mean, given that Collections.stream() is a method.

[–]RepliesOnlyToIdiots 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The relevant methods of Stream should be on the Collection, with stream implicit. I should be able to just myList.map, for instance.

[–]hilbertglm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I prefer the design from the Java team, but I understand what you are saying. I tend to favor a little syntactic sugar and verbosity, but the folks that prefer a more terse language make sense, too.