Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A5B200C41 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:30:00 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id C52E1160B93; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:30:00 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 17D28160B75 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:29:59 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 97469 invoked by uid 500); 24 Mar 2017 22:29:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@groovy.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@groovy.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@groovy.apache.org Received: (qmail 97456 invoked by uid 99); 24 Mar 2017 22:29:59 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:29:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id D4C82C147E for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:29:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.997 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IobFLAU_fG94 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:29:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 2422A5F297 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:29:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.10.6] ([89.13.201.3]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LzoSt-1c5Mdv2jkh-0155Gv for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:17:12 +0100 Subject: Re: Testing the Java 8 / Parrot parser online! To: users@groovy.apache.org References: <5C676E6359909E478C7B811BDB48CA3567983B@CWWAPP478.windstream.com> From: Jochen Theodorou Message-ID: <58D59AE5.3020006@gmx.org> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:17:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5C676E6359909E478C7B811BDB48CA3567983B@CWWAPP478.windstream.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:m4ZXc3n/4x+rCACKhdQ4ej0Keq6Cptxn3enivShIq3nf4fif2O1 A37SD5hrxd21Y23s0TORboE4QfQT0dASsql4/p4GYUvR/VNS5uV9row45sOqYiX1M1581pH pgi/vW+9YvgJhsdpVPUoy1RsOKsXFZe7wCTrFItq6e6cFOGz1+F/AdXt7OGTMjoj/17OKDu AqGAn2PwaCHJWLcoZQv+w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:geLCx/tbtMo=:ob/ZVCdPJ962pwN5lKWohZ KyQE7OD79J36OeAp4VNRfOie1VekjEAjmkLn5GN3wsKP0Ut48S5Bw7HxJn/Pflsx05Q7HSoQF KUqL6L2j6dOaNL7uuloPwyzvDS7P89z+Q7nZnB/5HTLuJdgL29oR9GsP9F3hhr7xlSNMABqWG cQ2J0ZdO9LFedweBIr6jZGXrlW0C2RtPLvl6nldYgmegAdQFfIwgfJF2IBxeA1SDDguzY+iUK +iD1vky9Wok38/zMdiJnNrXHHrFLHCFV9VHRjsCEhtFhmZlUW9vyUSnKTHKbe6sYxX1vqGUmU EB7FdjohK4ECsjZEPB0YnUKctXHFnd9Uj9XClB6d+pCI0ll6jHfufxNtidVMuEzzJB3+2mCWl 6UtoBcZXPAIr6FC8zWX6w818UR0ziZSInmElO4hHcoBsCQG/9u5LJ7Z0khXOyWJi3DFI5lFia Uchb5B+Hti0boRUnqy4O2+VRfVAqtanOtG0S9k9JKb68EHnCTyX6QVqMoS2XmYhxF7NM5Kl3Z FS1o3g6OqaiGLzI4lIAae/z0ig7oBfU/mx7vC5VbJ7/+6QRfkwXYaGEm6fgTtW9mQboMxtYia VOoAN2H9VUJeKHLE7ezYGcFvfTHq37wvR9dTc49Ds0adkaRZNl5DhcF+P+XbSqziZRUY2hiIK sUc6emkCRxfHxFSKwr+MJrKfalO1g34UR/ccc4mjZrUO6fzlk25gdZDzgNUm7WBQTM2hST9U9 At1RCxZjbIIA1UbpYktUJOiUpgsQpspBkQgCE1S5cqjzSpvFQ6e3uluQUtqY6QkJeGbqGOlyh yy9Y2Su archived-at: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:30:00 -0000 On 24.03.2017 22:06, Winnebeck, Jason wrote: > That is awesome. If the Java 8 syntax is supported, does that mean > Groovy will support lambdas? One thing that saddened me about using Java > 8 from Groovy is that you have the overhead of closure classes/meta > class and the “dynamic” conversion/proxy into the Java functional > interfaces, while the same code written in Java uses the lambda > functionality which appears to return a singleton instance of a > VM-generated class with presumably much less overhead. Groovy will be supporting that at one point I think. bye Jochen