Syntax is:
arguments -> body
where arguments can be either
()a single variable if the type of that variable can be inferred from the context
a sequence of variables, with or without types (or since Java 11, with
var), in parentheses.
Examples:(x),(x, y),(int x, int y),(var x, var y)(Java 11+).
The following are invalid:(int x, y),(x, var y),(var x, int y)
and body can be either an expression or a {...} block with statements. The expression (other than a method or constructor call) is simply returned, i.e. () -> 2 is equivalent to () -> {return 2;}
In case of lambda expressions like () -> f() (the body is a method or constructor call expression):
if
f()returnsvoid, they are equivalent to() -> { f(); }otherwise, they are equivalent to either
() -> { f(); }or() -> { return f(); }). The compiler infers it from the calling context, but usually it will prefer the latter.
Therefore, if you have two methods: void handle(Supplier<T>) and void handle(Runnable), then:
handle(() -> { return f(); })andhandle(() -> x)will call the first one,handle(() -> { f(); }will call the second one, andhandle(() -> f()):if
f()returnsvoidor a type that is not convertible toT, then it will call the second oneif
f()returns a type that is convertible toT, then it will call the first one
The compiler tries to match the type of the lambda to the context. I don't know the exact rules, but the answer to:
What would happen if there were two SwingUtilities.invokeLater methods which differ only in parameter list?
is: it depends on what would be those parameter lists. If the other invokeLater had also exactly one parameter and that parameter would be of type that is also an interface with one method of type void*(), well, then it would complain that it cannot figure out which method you mean.
Why are they written as they are? Well, I think it's because syntax in C# and Scala is almost the same (they use => rather than ->).
What is the breakdown for Java's lambda syntax? - Stack Overflow
Meaning of lambda () -> { } in Java - Stack Overflow
java - Do lambda expressions have any use other than saving lines of code? - Stack Overflow
What is the most popular language to use in lambda. Java/Node/Python?
So I’m reading a book on Java, and it’s talking about lambdas. The syntax seems simple enough, but the author hasn’t described why you would use them over a regular function. They’re being used in the context of functions that don’t have bodies (abstracts, I think?), but I don’t understand why I would use those either.
Syntax is:
arguments -> body
where arguments can be either
()a single variable if the type of that variable can be inferred from the context
a sequence of variables, with or without types (or since Java 11, with
var), in parentheses.
Examples:(x),(x, y),(int x, int y),(var x, var y)(Java 11+).
The following are invalid:(int x, y),(x, var y),(var x, int y)
and body can be either an expression or a {...} block with statements. The expression (other than a method or constructor call) is simply returned, i.e. () -> 2 is equivalent to () -> {return 2;}
In case of lambda expressions like () -> f() (the body is a method or constructor call expression):
if
f()returnsvoid, they are equivalent to() -> { f(); }otherwise, they are equivalent to either
() -> { f(); }or() -> { return f(); }). The compiler infers it from the calling context, but usually it will prefer the latter.
Therefore, if you have two methods: void handle(Supplier<T>) and void handle(Runnable), then:
handle(() -> { return f(); })andhandle(() -> x)will call the first one,handle(() -> { f(); }will call the second one, andhandle(() -> f()):if
f()returnsvoidor a type that is not convertible toT, then it will call the second oneif
f()returns a type that is convertible toT, then it will call the first one
The compiler tries to match the type of the lambda to the context. I don't know the exact rules, but the answer to:
What would happen if there were two SwingUtilities.invokeLater methods which differ only in parameter list?
is: it depends on what would be those parameter lists. If the other invokeLater had also exactly one parameter and that parameter would be of type that is also an interface with one method of type void*(), well, then it would complain that it cannot figure out which method you mean.
Why are they written as they are? Well, I think it's because syntax in C# and Scala is almost the same (they use => rather than ->).
The syntax is
(parameter_list_here) -> { stuff_to_do; }
The curly braces can be omitted if it's a single expression. The regular parentheses around the parameter list can be omitted if it's a single parameter.
The syntax only works for all functional interfaces. The @FunctionalInterface annotation tells the compiler that you intend to write such an interface and gives a compile error if you do not meet the requirement(s) - for example it must only have 1 overrideable method.
@FunctionalInterface
interface TestInterface {
void dostuff();
}
Runnable is also declared like that. Other interfaces are not, and they cannot be used with lambda functions.
Now that we've made a new functional interface with a method that takes no parameters, how about we test the question you had about "collision" in the signatures?
public class Main {
private void test(Runnable r) {
}
private void test(TestInterface ti) {
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
test(() -> { System.out.println("test");})
}
@FunctionalInterface
interface TestInterface {
void dostuff();
}
}
Result: compile error: ambigouous call to method test.
You see, the compiler/VM(if done runtime) finds the appropriate methods and their parameter list and sees if the parameter is a functional interface and if it is it creates an anonymous implementation of that interface. Technically (in byte code) it's different from an anonymous class, but otherwise identical (you won't see Main$1.class files).
Your example code (courtesy of Netbeans) can also be replaced with
SwingUtilities.invokeLater(MainAppJFrame::new);
Btw. :)
Its a Runnable with an empty run definition. The anonymous class representation of this would be:
new Runnable() {
@Override public void run() {
// could have done something here
}
}
Lamda expression is an anonymous function that allows you to pass methods as arguments or simply, a mechanism that helps you remove a lot of boilerplate code. They have no access modifier(private, public or protected), no return type declaration and no name.
Lets take a look at this example.
(int a, int b) -> {return a > b}
In your case, you can do something like below:
schedulerFuture = taskScheduler.schedule(new Runnable() {
@Override
public void run() {
// task details
}
}, this);
Lambda expressions do not change the set of problems you can solve with Java in general, but definitely make solving certain problems easier, just for the same reason we’re not programming in assembly language anymore. Removing redundant tasks from the programmer’s work makes life easier and allows to do things you wouldn’t even touch otherwise, just for the amount of code you would have to produce (manually).
But lambda expressions are not just saving lines of code. Lambda expressions allow you to define functions, something for which you could use anonymous inner classes as a workaround before, that’s why you can replace anonymous inner classes in these cases, but not in general.
Most notably, lambda expressions are defined independently to the functional interface they will be converted to, so there are no inherited members they could access, further, they can not access the instance of the type implementing the functional interface. Within a lambda expression, this and super have the same meaning as in the surrounding context, see also this answer. Also, you can not create new local variables shadowing local variables of the surrounding context. For the intended task of defining a function, this removes a lot of error sources, but it also implies that for other use cases, there might be anonymous inner classes which can not be converted to a lambda expression, even if implementing a functional interface.
Further, the construct new Type() { … } guarantees to produce a new distinct instance (as new always does). Anonymous inner class instances always keep a reference to their outer instance if created in a non-static context¹. In contrast, lambda expressions only capture a reference to this when needed, i.e. if they access this or a non-static member. And they produce instances of an intentionally unspecified identity, which allows the implementation to decide at runtime whether to reuse existing instances (see also “Does a lambda expression create an object on the heap every time it's executed?”).
These differences apply to your example. Your anonymous inner class construct will always produce a new instance, also it may capture a reference to the outer instance, whereas your (Developer o1, Developer o2) -> o1.getName().compareTo(o2.getName()) is a non-capturing lambda expression that will evaluate to a singleton in typical implementations. Further, it doesn’t produce a .class file on your hard drive.
Given the differences regarding both, semantic and performance, lambda expressions may change the way programmers will solve certain problems in the future, of course, also due to the new APIs embracing ideas of functional programming utilizing the new language features. See also Java 8 lambda expression and first-class values.
¹ From JDK 1.1 to JDK 17. Starting with JDK 18, inner classes may not retain a reference to the outer instance if it is not used. For compatibility reasons, this requires the inner class not be serializable. This only applies if you (re)compile the inner class under JDK 18 or newer with target JDK 18 or newer. See also JDK-8271717
Programming languages are not for machines to execute.
They are for programmers to think in.
Languages are a conversation with a compiler to turn our thoughts into something a machine can execute. One of the chief complaints about Java from people who come to it from other languages (or leave it for other languages) used to be that it forces a certain mental model on the programmer (i.e. everything is a class).
I'm not going to weigh in on whether that's good or bad: everything is trade-offs. But Java 8 lambdas allow programmers to think in terms of functions, which is something you previously could not do in Java.
It's the same thing as a procedural programmer learning to think in terms of classes when they come to Java: you see them gradually move from classes that are glorified structs and have 'helper' classes with a bunch of static methods and move on to something that more closely resembles a rational OO design (mea culpa).
If you just think of them as a shorter way to express anonymous inner classes then you are probably not going to find them very impressive in the same way that the procedural programmer above probably didn't think classes were any great improvement.