Oh I’d be interested in a functor2 that’s adapted for Java 8. I might work on a proof of concept proposal first.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 20:09, Bruno P. Kinoshita <ki...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Gilles > I can't speak for others, but I agree we would need to remove most of the > code that is now available in Java 8. I think [functor] would need more a > place for functional code that does not belong to lang, but is still useful > to other devs & components. > > Bruno > > > On Saturday, 3 August 2019, 1:48:50 am NZST, Gilles Sadowski < > gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Bruno. > > Le mer. 31 juil. 2019 à 08:05, Bruno P. Kinoshita <ki...@apache.org> a > écrit : > > > > Hi, > > > > >Or maybe more accurately, Commons doesn't have any libraries for this > yet (not like we're limited to purely Javahere). > > We have the unreleased Commons Functor. I believe this was the intention > of the project, though it lost momentum. > > The site is outdated: link to the source repository returns 404.[1] > > > But some interesting code there that could be simplified and released if > there's still interest. > > From a quick browsing of the documentation[2], it seems that a large chunk > is now covered by the JDK's "java.util.function" package. If so, the > first step > would probably be a purge of everything that duplicates functionality > available > in standard classes. > > It would be most interesting to read what the developers who contributed > to that component think.[3] > > Regards, > Gilles > > [1] > https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-functor/source-repository.html > [2] https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-functor/apidocs/index.html > [3] https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-functor/team-list.html > > > > > Bruno > > > > On Wednesday, 31 July 2019, 3:59:25 am NZST, Matt Sicker < > boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 08:50, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I certainly agree with Gary as to why "Commons" is not there being a > > > practical issue (of no concerted road map and lacking developers to > > > implement it). However, did I understand correctly that you consider > > > such a development to be useless? I.e. rather than updating "Commons" > > > do you suggest that application developers should not use it? > > > > I meant that writing Commons libraries for functional programming > > still isn't possible with Java's limited generics and type system. I'm > > talking about higher kinded types, dependent types, monads, functors, > > etc. While there are some Java libraries out there that attempt to do > > this [1] [2], there's no "natural" way to express type classes and > > other functional programming concepts in Java. Considering the lack of > > Kotlin and Scala libraries in Commons at the moment, I'd conclude that > > this isn't the most appropriate place for functional programming > > libraries at the moment. Or maybe more accurately, Commons doesn't > > have any libraries for this yet (not like we're limited to purely Java > > here). > > > > However, that isn't to say that Commons libraries can't offer anything > > useful that relies on lambda functions, streams, completable futures, > > etc., but that is a fairly limited subset of functional programming, > > and any academic study looking at this should know that due to > > familiarity with languages like Haskell where "real" functional > > programming tends to take place still. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding > > the point of this question entirely. > > > > [1]: https://www.functionaljava.org/ > > [2]: https://www.vavr.io/ > > > > -- > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
