On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 20:20:37 GMT, Marius Hanl <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I just can't believe that one function requires more cognitive load than a
>> bunch of long sequential lines (are they the same? different? do I need to
>> check character by character)?
>>
>> It's a minor annoyance, so it's up to the author really. There is no
>> runtime impact, I think.
>>
>> But I will complain about poorly formatted lambdas each time.
>
> There is some interesting research about this matter - like how much things
> we can remember at once when reading code and so on. I took that from there.
>
> In any case, it is a matter of taste.
> For me, the `IntStream` is a common pattern so I do not see how a utility
> method helps, other then making the class bigger with a method that is used
> in 4/80 tests (as an example).
> Same for lambdas, big lambdas inline are IMHO not readable anymore,
> especially with many if-else. A method reference will help a lot, since the
> method name should already provide some information.
>
> Regarding lambda fomratting, I don't use the `{..}` if I don't need to. It
> will just add extra clutter for no improvement. And IntelliJ also marks that
> as 'can be removed, not needed for a single line'. And I agree with that.
inability to set a breakpoint on a lambda in some IDEs is not exactly a matter
of taste, but of convenience. thanks for making my life less convenient.
I still can't believe `IntStream.range(0, 15).boxed().map(integer -> "Item " +
integer).toList()` is considered to have less cognitive load than a simple
function call. it's hilarious! :-)
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2118#discussion_r2984090983
