cretzel
-
... I'd had two or three other frameworks (apart from fork-join, see ) that would benefit from closures ...
about 5 hours ago
from TwitterGadget
-
Seems like the main reason for them to introduce closures in is to remove boilerplate code from the fork-join framework ...
about 5 hours ago
from TwitterGadget
-
Nice article by Brian Goetz on fork/join in : . Dates back to Nov 2007, folks!
about 5 hours ago
from TwitterGadget
-
Using for
1:17 AM Nov 24th
from TwitterGadget
-
RT @: @ AOP solves a problem that doesn't exist in more powerful languages
1:15 AM Nov 24th
from TwitterGadget
-
RT @: RT @ @ Web applications can be handled on multi-core without fancy new features
6:53 AM Nov 20th
from TwitterGadget
-
@ Isn't that BGGA? This 'official' document says it's FCM .
1:53 PM Nov 18th
from TwitterGadget
in reply to puredanger
-
@ @ Looks like this is the official closures definition announced at :
1:43 PM Nov 18th
from TwitterGadget
-
@ Thanks. I noticed that the agile people like and gave it a try. Was surprised about how easy it is to use.
1:02 PM Nov 18th
from TwitterGadget
in reply to DavidBaum
-
Anybody who knows some details about the announcement at that Java 7 will contain closures?
9:06 AM Nov 18th
from TwitterGadget
-
Nice presentation tool. "Prezi"
9:10 AM Nov 17th
from TwitterGadget
-
New Blog Post: "Concurrency is not such a big Deal ..." .
9:09 AM Nov 17th
from TwitterGadget
-
For me, concurrency is secondary. It's more about expressivenes.
12:57 PM Nov 11th
from TwitterGadget
-
When it comes to web apps, concurrency is not an argument in the debate about which language would be the best Java successor, right?
12:53 PM Nov 11th
from TwitterGadget
-
@ , ftw!
4:48 AM Nov 11th
from TwitterGadget
in reply to skohler
-
@ By the way, we had to make a decision for/against OSGi about a year ago. I loved it, but for some reasons we decided against it.
4:27 AM Nov 11th
from TwitterGadget
in reply to njbartlett
-
@ Also, I think, many people to not value modularity as much as they should. Same for OSGi dynamic services.
4:23 AM Nov 11th
from TwitterGadget
in reply to njbartlett
-
@ There's definitively the need for modularity. But it seems for many people this need is not huge enough to make them adopt OSGi.
4:22 AM Nov 11th
from TwitterGadget
-
@ Don't know really. Probably it's startup time, speed, simplicity, ... And also, I'm too commited to Google's apps and services.
3:40 AM Nov 11th
from TwitterGadget
-
@ Yeah, but feels like adoption of has somehow suffered from the jigsaw/osgi debate/flame war. Just a personal feeling.
3:35 AM Nov 11th
from TwitterGadget
|
- Name Nick Wiedenbrueck
- Location Lippstadt, Germany
- Web http://stronglyty...
- Bio Java Software Developer, Spring, Hibernate, Wicket, Groovy, JavaFX
|
