> You see lots of higher-order methods for things like manipulating sequences. Go has lambdas, but stylistically tends to be more imperative, so I'm not sure if they'll feel the same pressure.
`range` is generic, and by virtue of that is a builtin which only works with a subset of the also builtin magically generic types.
The reason why Go "does not feel the same pressure" has nothing to do with its imperative style[0] it is because they special-cased a few generic structures as builtin very early on, unlike, say, Java (which only had arrays as a typed datastucture).
[0] Java and C# are could hardly be more imperative, hell Java is only just adding anonymous functions
They also sucked as an interface (for developers to use), resulting in them only being used when no other option was available (Comparable) or for cute hacks (double-brace initialisation).
Absolutely correct. Lambdas are just shorthand for anonymous inner classes which implement an interface with only one method -- aka single abstract method (SAM) types.
For instance, you have two functions. One takes `Function<Type, Type>` and the other takes `UnaryOperator<Type>`. Giving the "same" lambda to both functions will result in two anonymous inner types, one implementing both interfaces.
They're not exactly shorthand. They use `invoke_dynamic` under the hood, which defers the creation of the lambda til it is used. Conceptually they are, but in practice they're a little different.
`range` is generic, and by virtue of that is a builtin which only works with a subset of the also builtin magically generic types.
The reason why Go "does not feel the same pressure" has nothing to do with its imperative style[0] it is because they special-cased a few generic structures as builtin very early on, unlike, say, Java (which only had arrays as a typed datastucture).
[0] Java and C# are could hardly be more imperative, hell Java is only just adding anonymous functions