Do lambda expressions have any use other than saving lines of code?

Are there any special features provided by lambdas which solved problems which weren't easy to solve? The typical usage I've seen is that instead of writing this:

Comparator<Developer> byName = new Comparator<Developer>() {
  @Override
  public int compare(Developer o1, Developer o2) {
    return o1.getName().compareTo(o2.getName());
  }
};

We can use a lambda expression to shorten the code:

Comparator<Developer> byName =
(Developer o1, Developer o2) -> o1.getName().compareTo(o2.getName());
share|improve this question
14  
Note that it can be even shorter: (o1, o2) -> o1.getName().compareTo(o2.getName()) – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen yesterday
46  
or still shorter: Comparator.comparing(Developer::getName) – Thomas Kläger yesterday
22  
I wouldn't underestimate that benefit. When things are that much easier, you're more likely to do things the "right" way. There's often some tension between doing writing code that's more maintainable in the long term, vs easier to jot down in the short term. Lambdas reduce that tension, and so help you write cleaner code. – yshavit yesterday
4  
Lambdas are closures, which makes the space savings even bigger, since now you don't have to add a parameterized constructor, fields, assignment code, etc to your replacement class. – CodesInChaos yesterday
9  
up vote 58 down vote accepted

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 work-around 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). And anonymous inner class instances always keep a reference to their outer instance if created in a non-static context. In contrast, lambda expression 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 noncapturing 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.

share|improve this answer
    
Essentially, lambda expressions are a type of functional programming. Given that any task can be done with functional programming or imperative programming, there is no advantage except from readability and maintainability, which may outweigh other concerns. – Draco18s 12 hours ago
    
"Lambda expressions allow you to define functions..." It might be helpful to define what a function is in this context. – Trilarion 5 hours ago
    
@Trilarion: you could fill entire books with the definition of function. You would also have to decide whether to focus on the goal or on the aspects supported by Java’s lambda expressions. The last link of my answer (this one) does already discuss some of these aspects in the context of Java. But to understand my answer, it’s already enough to understand that functions are a different concept than classes. For more details, there are already existing resources and Q&As… – Holger 5 hours ago
    
Thanks for this detailed comment. In the beginning you say that the set of solvable problems remains unchanged. Then you state that Lambda expressions allow you to define functions. So either functions do not allow to solve more problems or there was already a way to define functions in which case one could write that Lambda expressions are yet another way to define functions. Thanks for all the links. – Trilarion 4 hours ago
    
@Trilarion: both, functions do not allow to solve more problems, unless you consider the amount of code size/complexity or workarounds needed by other solutions as inacceptable (as said in the first paragraph), and there was already a way to define functions, as said, inner classes could be used as workaround for the absence of a better way to define functions (but inner classes aren’t functions, as they can serve much more purposes). It’s the same as with OOP—it doesn’t allow to do anything you couldn’t with assembly, but still, can you image an application like Eclipse written in assembly? – Holger 4 hours ago

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.

share|improve this answer
4  
Be careful with that though, I used to think that OOP was everything, and then I got horribly confused with entity-component-system architectures (whaddaya mean you don't have a class for each kind of game object?! and each game object isn't an OOP object?!) – immibis 16 hours ago
1  
In other words, thinking in OOP, rather than just thinking *of* classes as another tool,y restricted my thinking in a bad way. – immibis 15 hours ago
1  
@immibis: there are lots of different ways to “think in OOP”, so besides the common mistake of confusing “thinking in OOP” with “thinking in classes”, there are lots of ways to think in a counter productive way. Unfortunately, that happens too often right from the start, as even books and tutorials teach the inferior ones, show anti patterns in examples and spread that thinking. The assumed need to “have a class for each kind of” whatever, is just one example, contradicting the concept of abstraction, likewise, there seems to be the “OOP means writing as much boilerplate as possible” myth, etc – Holger 8 hours ago
    
@immibis although in that instance it wasn't helping you, that anecdote does actually support the point: the language and paradigm provide a framework for structuring your thoughts and turning them into a design. In your case you ran up against the edges of the framework, but in another context doing that might have helped you from straying into a big ball of mud and producing an ugly design. Hence, I assume, "everything is trade-offs". Keeping the latter benefit while avoiding the former issue is a key question when deciding how "big" to make a language. – Leushenko 2 hours ago

Saving lines of code can be viewed as a new feature, if it enables you to write a substantial chunk of logic in a shorter and clearer manner, which takes less time for others to read and understand.

Without lambda expressions (and/or method references) Stream pipelines would have been much less readable.

Think, for example, how the following Stream pipeline would have looked like if you replaced each lambda expression with an anonymous class instance.

List<String> names =
    people.stream()
          .filter(p -> p.getAge() > 21)
          .map(p -> p.getName())
          .sorted((n1,n2) -> n1.compareToIgnoreCase(n2))
          .collect(Collectors.toList());

It would be:

List<String> names =
    people.stream()
          .filter(new Predicate<Person>() {
              @Override
              public boolean test(Person p) {
                  return p.getAge() > 21;
              }
          })
          .map(new Function<Person,String>() {
              @Override
              public String apply(Person p) {
                  return p.getName();
              }
          })
          .sorted(new Comparator<String>() {
              @Override
              public int compare(String n1, String n2) {
                  return n1.compareToIgnoreCase(n2);
              }
          })
          .collect(Collectors.toList());

This is much harder to write than the version with lambda expressions, and it's much more error prone. It's also harder to understand.

And this is a relatively short pipeline.

To make this readable without lambda expressions and method references, you would have had to define variables that hold the various functional interface instances being used here, which would have split the logic of the pipeline, making it harder to understand.

share|improve this answer
12  
I think this is a key insight. It could be argued that something is practically impossible to do in a programming language if the syntactic and cognitive overhead is too big to be useful, so that other approaches will be superior. Therefore, by reducing syntactic and cognitive overhead (like lambdas do compared to anonymous classes), pipelines such as the above become possible. More tongue-in-cheek, if writing a piece of code gets you fired from your job, it could be said that it isn't possible. – Sebastian Redl yesterday
    
Nitpick: You don't actually need the Comparator for sorted as it compares in natural order anyway. Maybe change it to comparing length of strings or similar, to make the example even better? – tobias_k 7 hours ago
    
@tobias_k no problem. I changed it to compareToIgnoreCase to make it behave different than sorted(). – Eran 5 hours ago

Internal iteration

When iterating Java Collections, most developers tend to get an element and then process it. This is, take that item out and then use it, or reinsert it, etc. With pre-8 versions of Java, you can implement an inner class and do something like:

numbers.forEach(new Consumer<Integer>() {
    public void accept(Integer value) {
        System.out.println(value);
    }
});

Now with Java 8 you can do better and less verbose with:

numbers.forEach((Integer value) -> System.out.println(value));

or better

numbers.forEach(System.out::println);

Behaviors as arguments

Guess the following case:

public int sumAllEven(List<Integer> numbers) {
    int total = 0;

    for (int number : numbers) {
        if (number % 2 == 0) {
            total += number;
        }
    } 
    return total;
}

With Java 8 Predicate interface you can do better like so:

public int sumAll(List<Integer> numbers, Predicate<Integer> p) {
    int total = 0;

    for (int number : numbers) {
        if (p.test(number)) {
            total += number;
        }
    }
    return total;
}

Calling it like:

sumAll(numbers, n -> n % 2 == 0);

Source: DZone - Why We Need Lambda Expressions in Java

share|improve this answer
    
Probably the first case is a way to save some lines of code, but it makes code easier to read – alseether yesterday
4  
How is internal iteration a lambda feature? The simple matter of fact is technically lambdas don’t let you do anything that you couldn’t do prior to java-8. It’s just a more concise way to pass code around. – Aominè yesterday
    
@Aominè In this case numbers.forEach((Integer value) -> System.out.println(value)); the lambda expression is made of two parts the one on the left of the arrow symbol (->) listing its parameters and the one on the right containing its body. The compiler automatically figures out that the lambda expression has the same signature of the only non implemented method of the Consumer interface. – alseether yesterday
5  
I didn’t ask what a lambda expression is, I am just saying internal iteration has nothing to do with lambda expressions. – Aominè yesterday
1  
@Aominè I see your point, it doesn't have anything with lambdas per se, but as you point out, it more like a cleaner way of writting. I think in terms of efficiency is as good as pre-8 versions – alseether yesterday

There are many benefits of using lambdas instead of inner class following as below:

  • Make the code more compactly and expressive without introducing more language syntax semantics. you already gave an example in your question.

  • By using lambdas you are happy to programming with functional-style operations on streams of elements, such as map-reduce transformations on collections. see java.util.function & java.util.stream packages documentation.

  • There is no physical classes file generated for lambdas by compiler. Thus, it makes your delivered applications smaller. How Memory assigns to lambda?

  • The compiler will optimize lambda creation if the lambda doesn't access variables out of its scope, which means the lambda instance only create once by the JVM. for more details you can see @Holger's answer of the question Is method reference caching a good idea in Java 8? .

  • Lambdas can implements multi marker interfaces besides the functional interface, but the anonymous inner classes can't implements more interfaces, for example:

    //                 v--- create the lambda locally.
    Consumer<Integer> action = (Consumer<Integer> & Serializable) it -> {/*TODO*/};
    
share|improve this answer

To answer your question, the matter of fact is lambdas don’t let you do anything that you couldn’t do prior to java-8, rather it enables you to write more concise code. The benefits of this, is that your code will be clearer and more flexible.

share|improve this answer
    
Clearly @Holger has dissipate any doubt in terms of lambda efficiency. It's not only a way to make code cleaner, but if lambda doesn't capture any value, it will be a Singleton class (reusable) – alseether yesterday
    
If you dig deep down, every language feature has a difference. The question at hand is at a high level hence I wrote my answer at a high level. – Aominè yesterday

One thing I don't see mentioned yet is that a lambda lets you define functionality where it's used.

So if you have some simple selection function you don't need to put it in a separate place with a bunch of boilerplate, you just write a lambda that's concise and locally relevant.

share|improve this answer
    
It's fine to do that, but there's a use case where you just use the lambda in one place for one thing. When you can do that it's better to do that. – Carlos 23 hours ago

Yes many advantages are there.

  • No need to define whole class we can pass implementation of function it self as reference.
    • Internally creation of class will create .class file while if you use lambda then class creation is avoided by compiler because in lambda you are passing function implementation instead of class.
  • Code re-usability is higher then before
  • And as you said code is shorter then normal implementation.
share|improve this answer

Lambdas are just syntactic sugar for anonymous classes.

Before lambdas, anonymous classes can be used to achieve the same thing. Every lambda expression can be converted to an anonymous class.

If you are using IntelliJ IDEA, it can do the conversion for you:

  • Put the cursor in the lambda
  • Press alt/option + enter

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
2  
... I thought @StuartMarks has already clarified the syntactic sugar-ity (sp? gr?) of lambdas? (stackoverflow.com/a/15241404/3475600, softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/181743) – srborlongan yesterday

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.