> Again, and as succinctly as I can put it: I do not think> that java needs additional parallel-functional control> structures. Rather, it needs decent closure support so> that library developers (mainly around the Collections)> can expose methods that take closures and use existing> tools to handle parallelization behind the scenes.Oh, I...

> Swapping in a parallelMap() operation here or there isn't > going to buy you much unless it's a really, really big > array you're dealing with.To your point, I think there's a tendency to think about parallelism at too low of a level. The overhead of thread coordination eats up a lot of benefits. The other problem I see is that people seem to...

> Howard,> > We are talking past one another a bit right now. You are> talking primarily about the implementation side. I was> looking at your function from the user side, and it looks> pretty awful to me.I tried to address that in my revision of the initial code. It's equivalent other than moving to a more OO approach.> You want to write...

As far as the original example goes, I would prefer something like this which eliminates the static method and uses composition instead of inheritance. I think it makes the code a lot cleaner and easier to follow / use.import java.util.LinkedHashMap; import java.util.Map; import java.util.concurrent.Callable; import...

> The world is not class-oriented. We do stuff on things> based on what those things provide, not on what those> things are called.What does a wheel provide?

> > Do you have any thoughts on what kind > > of abstraction layer would be required > > to support this?> > Dave, to some extent this could be (and it actually was!)> done on the OS level. Anybody who still remembers what IBM> AS/400 was should be familiar with the Single Level Store> concept...

In a word, no.As pointed out above, RSS allows blogs to be push as well as pull. It's an example of complete obsolescence.Another example of this which is annoying to me personally, (I have not been subscribed to a newsletter for a decade if ever) is the continued dependence on newsgroups instead of just setting up a proper on-line forum.

> When I wrote that we had to "write our own container", I> was just trying to explain that we had to find ways of> implementing the functionality of a "container". However,> most of the stuff could be elegantly solved using language> constructs and abstractions. For example, this is how we> solved DI (using the Cake Pattern): Thanks for...

> Jonas's work demonstrates how Scala’s “novel ways to> abstract and compose programs” addresses DI and AOP.This is something that confused me. It seems to me that DI and AOP are tools to address the deficiencies in languages like Java. But in this blog entry, it's implied that they had to write their own container to incorporate these features.

> Am I the only one getting impatient with the> training-wheels approach of this series? I think these> first 4 could have been condensed into one post easily.I agree but I've previously put time into learning a little LISP. The problem with everything I've read in the past is that there's always a promise of these great things you can do but...

The assertion that "The non-technical person using Linux is just as much at risk" is just not true. A non-technical person using Linux is free to hire whomever he or she wants to help with the technical issues. When the system is cloud based, the user loses this right. And if the users (non-technical) or otherwise doesn't read the fine print,...

> So, Bruce, if you are bothered with self in argument list,> why are you not bothered with having to write self to> class attributes more? I think we came around to your> original problem - Python has just different syntax.I think a lot of people are bothered by this because there is a disconnect between the number of arguments in the...

> > Thanks Atilla and Kay for humoring me. I understand> the> > issues much better now.> > > > I have to ask though, are some of these things even> > useful? They seem accidental to me. Especially with> > regard to the 'surprise' behavior Atilla demonstrated> > above. How would I use this feature? What value does> it> > provide?> >...

Thanks Atilla and Kay for humoring me. I understand the issues much better now.I have to ask though, are some of these things even useful? They seem accidental to me. Especially with regard to the 'surprise' behavior Atilla demonstrated above. How would I use this feature? What value does it provide?

>> I'm not totally clear how this would break. Wouldn't the>> call work exactly the same way? The only difference>> would be that self would be an implicit argument, right?> > It's actually the same problem as with lambda expressions> or any other standalone functions that are going to> replace methods. So it might add little to what was>...