class BaseFunction {
static #allowInstantiation = false;
constructor(...args) {
if (!BaseFunction.#allowInstantiation) {
throw new Error(
"Why are you trying to use 'new'? Classes are so 2015! Use our fancy 'run' method instead!"
);
}
for (const [name, validator] of this.parameters()) {
this[name] = validator(args.shift());
}
}
parameters() {
return [];
}
body() {
return undefined;
}
static run(...args) {
BaseFunction.#allowInstantiation = true;
const instance = new this(...args);
BaseFunction.#allowInstantiation = false;
return instance.body();
}
}
class Add extends BaseFunction {
parameters() {
return [
["a", (x) => Number(x)],
["b", (x) => Number(x)],
];
}
body() {
return this.a + this.b;
}
}
console.log(Add.run(5, 3)); // 8
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Yep, some code examples from the official documentation. This:
…is syntactic sugar for this:
…which is syntactic sugar for this:
The
printPersons
function looks like this:Basically, if you accept a parameter that implements an interface with only one method (
CheckPerson
), then your caller can provide you an object like that by using the lambda syntax from the first example.They had to retrofit lambdas into the language, and they sure chose the one hammer that the language has.
Source: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/lambdaexpressions.html
That’s not quite right. In bytecode, lambdas are significantly more efficient than anonymous class instances. So while the lambda implementation is semantically equivalent, characterizing it like you have is reductive and a bit misleading.