In this program, let’s say I have a class Leader that I want to assign to a class Mission. The Mission requires a class Skill, which has a type and a strength. The Leader has a List of Skills. I want to write a method that assigns a Leader (or a number of leaders) to a Mission and check if the Leaders’ combined skill strength is enough to accomplish the Mission.
public void assignLeaderToMission(Mission m, Leader... leaders) {
List<Leader> selectedLeaders = new ArrayList(Arrays.asList(leaders));
int combinedStrength = selectedLeaders
.stream()
.mapToInt(l -> l.getSkills()
.stream()
.filter(s -> s.getType() == m.getSkillRequirement().getType())
.mapToInt(s -> s.getStrength())
.sum())
.sum();
if(m.getSkillRequirement().getStrength() > combinedStrength)
System.out.println("Leader(s) do not meet mission requirements");
else {
// assign leader to mission
}
}
Is this the appropriate way to use a stream with lambda operations? NetBeans is giving a suggestion that I use an anonymous class, but I thought that lambas and aggregate operations were supposed to replace the need for anonymous classes with a single method, or maybe I am interpreting this incorrectly.
In this case, I am accessing a List<> within a List<> and I am not sure this is the correct way to do so. Some help would be much appreciated.
There is nothing wrong with using lambda expressions here. Netbeans just offers that code transformation, since is is possible (and Netbeans can do the transformation for you). If you accept the offer and let it convert the code, it very likely starts offering converting the anonymous class to a lambda expression as soon as the conversion has been done, simply because it is (now) possible.
But if you want to improve your code, you should not use raw types, i.e. use
List<Leader> selectedLeaders = new ArrayList<>(Arrays.asList(leaders));
instead. But if you just want a List<Leader> without needing support for add or remove, there is no need to copy the list into an ArrayList, so you can use
List<Leader> selectedLeaders = Arrays.asList(leaders);
instead. But if all you want to do, is to stream over an array, you don’t need a List detour at all. You can simply use Arrays.stream(leaders) in the first place.
You may also use flatMap to reduce the amount of nested code, i.e.
int combinedStrength = Arrays.stream(leaders)
.flatMap(l -> l.getSkills().stream())
.filter(s -> s.getType() == m.getSkillRequirement().getType())
.mapToInt(s -> s.getStrength())
.sum();
Lambda must be concise so that it is easy to maintain. If the lambda expression is lengthy, then the code will become hard to maintain and understand. Even debugging will be harder.
More details on Why the perfect lambda expression is just one line can be read here.
The perilously long lambda
To better understand the benefits of writing short, concise lambda expressions, consider the opposite: a sprawling lambda that unfolds over several lines of code:
System.out.println(
values.stream()
.mapToInt(e -> {
int sum = 0;
for(int i = 1; i <= e; i++) {
if(e % i == 0) {
sum += i;
}
}
return sum;
})
.sum());
Even though this code is written in the functional style, it misses the benefits of functional-style programming. Let's consider the reasons why.
1. It's hard to read
Good code should be inviting to read. This code takes mental effort to read: your eyes strain to find the beginning and end of the different parts.
2. Its purpose isn't clear
Good code should read like a story, not like a puzzle. A long, anonymous piece of code like this one hides the details of its purpose, costing the reader time and effort. Wrapping this piece of code into a named function would make it modular, while also bringing out its purpose through the associated name.
3. Poor code quality
Whatever your code does, it's likely that you'll want to reuse it sometime. The logic in this code is embedded within the lambda, which in turn is passed as an argument to another function, mapToInt. If we needed the code elsewhere in our program, we might be tempted to rewrite it, thus introducing inconsistencies in our code base. Alternatively, we might just copy and paste the code. Neither option would result in good code or quality software.
4. It's hard to test
Code always does what was typed and not necessarily what was intended, so it stands that any nontrivial code must be tested. If the code within the lambda expression can't be reached as a unit, it can't be unit tested. You could run integration tests, but that is no substitute for unit testing, especially when that code does significant work.
5. Poor code coverage
Lambdas that were embedded in arguments were not easily extracted as units, and many showed up red on the coverage report. With no insight, the team simply had to assume that those pieces worked.
Related
I have the following code
//assume we have a list of custom type "details" already constructed
for(int i = 0; i < details.size(); ++i) {
CallerID number = details.get(i).getNextNumber();
ClientData.addToClient(number);
}
I have oversimplified the code. The enum CallerID and the ClientData object work as intended. I am asking for help converting this loop to a lambda function so I can understand the logic of how to do so, then fill in the appropriate code as needed.
Let's first write it as a modern basic for loop and golf it a bit, just so we're comparing apples to apples:
for (var detail : details) clientData.addToClient(detail.getNextNumber());
And this is probably the right answer. It is local var, exception, and control flow transparent (which is what you want), and short.
The lambda form is this, but it's got downsides (mostly, those transparencies). It also isn't any shorter. You shouldn't write it this way.
details.stream().forEach(d -> clientData.addToClient(detail.getNextNumber());
You may be able to just remove stream() from that. But probably not.
Generally when people say "I want it in lambda form", that's not because someone is holding a gun to your head - you are saying that because somebody peddling a religion of sorts to you told you that 'it was better' and that this 'will scale'. Realize that they are full of it. There can be advantages to 'functional style', but none of these snippets are functional. A true functional style would involve a bunch of side-effect-free transformations, and then returning something.
.addToClient? You've lost the functional game there - you would want to instead convert each detail to something (presumably a ClientID), and from there construct an immutable object from that stream. You'd 'collect' your ClientIDs into a clientData object.
Let's say for example that clientData is just a 'list of ClientIDs' and nothing more. Then you'd write something like this:
var clientData = details.stream()
.map(MyDetailClass::getNextNumber)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
Is this better? No. However, if you're looking for 'a stream-style, lambda-based functional take on things', that qualifies. The output is constructed by way of collection (and not forEach that does a side-effect operation), and all elements involved are (or can be) immutable.
There's no particular reason why you'd want this, but if for some reason you're convinced this is better, now you know what you want to do. "Just replace it with a lambda" doesn't make it 'functional'.
I am asking for help converting this loop to a lambda function so I can understand the logic of how to do so, then fill in the appropriate code as needed.
A Function returns a value. As you are just updating something what you need is a Consumer which accepts a single argument of a list of some detail. Assuming those are in a Class named SomeDetails, here is how you would do it.
As you iterating over some structure limited by size and using get(i) I am presuming a list is required here.
List<SomeDetails> details = new ArrayList<>(); // then populated
// lambda definition
Consumer<List<SomeDetails>> update = (lst)-> {
for(SomeDetails detail : lst) {
CallerID number = detail.getNextNumber();
ClientData.addToClient(number);
}
};
And then invoke it like this, passing the List.
update.accept(details);
All the above does is encapsulate the for loop (using the enhanced version for simplicity) and perform the operation.
If this is all you wanted, I would recommend just doing it as you were doing it sans the lambda.
Vavr's Either seems to solve one of my problems were some method does a lot of checks and returns either CalculationError or CalculationResult.
Either<CalculationError, CalculationResult> calculate (CalculationData calculationData) {
// either returns Either.left(new CalculationError()) or Either.right(new CalculationResult())
}
I have a wrapper which stores both errors and results
class Calculation {
List<CalculationResult> calculationResults;
List<CalculationError> calculationErrors;
}
Is there any neat solution to transform stream from Collection<CalculationData> data to Calculation?
This can be easily done using a custom collector. With a bit of pseudo code representing the Either:
Collector<Either<CalculationError, CalculationResult>, ?, Calculation> collector = Collector.of(
Calculation::new,
(calc, either) -> {
if (either has error) {
calc.calculationErrors.add(either.error);
} else {
calc.calculationResults.add(either.result);
}
},
(calc1, calc2) -> {
calc1.calculationErrors.addAll(calc2.calculationErrors);
calc1.calculationResults.addAll(calc2.calculationResults);
return calc1;
}
);
Calculation calc = data.stream()
.map(this::calculate)
.collect(collector);
Note that Calculation should initialize its two lists (in the declaration or a new constructor).
Well, you're using vavr, so 'neat' is right out. Tends to happen when you use tools that are hostile to the idiomatic form of the language. But, then again, 'neat' is a nebulous term with no clear defined meaning, so, I guess, whatever you think is 'neat', is therefore 'neat'. Neat, huh?
Either itself has the sequence method - but both of them work the way Either is supposed to work: They are left-biased in the sense that any Lefts present is treated as erroneous conditions, and that means all the Right values are discarded if even one of your Eithers is a Left. Thus, you cannot use either of the sequence methods to let Either itself bake you a list of the Right values. Even sequenceRight won't do this for you (it stops on the first Left in the list and returns that instead). The filter stuff similarly doesn't work like that - Either very much isn't really an Either in the sense of what that word means if you open a dictionary: It does not mean: A homogenous mix of 2 types. It's solely a non-java-like take on exception management: Right contains the 'answer', left contains the 'error' (you're using it correctly), but as a consequence there's nothing in the Either API to help with this task - which in effect involves 'please filter out the errors and then do something' ("Silently ignore errors" is rarely the right move. It is what is needed here, but it makes sense that the Either API isn't going to hand you a footgun. Even if you need it here).
Thus, we just write it plain jane java:
var calculation = new Calculation();
for (var e : mix) {
if (e.isLeft()) calculation.calculationErrors.add(e.getLeft());
if (e.isRight()) calculation.calculationResult.add(e.getRight());
}
(This presumes your Calculation constructor at least initializes those lists to empty mutables).
NB: Rob Spoor's answer also assumes this and is much, much longer. Sometimes the functional way is the silly, slow, unwieldy, hard to read, way.
NB2: Either.sequence(mix).orElseRun(s -> calculation.errors = s.asJava()); is a rather 'neat' way (perhaps - it's in the eye of the beholder) of setting up the errors field of your Calculation class. No joy for such a 'neat' trick to fill the 'results' part of it all, however. That's what the bulk of my answer is trying to explain: There is no nice API for that in Either, and it's probably by design, as that involves intentionally ignoring the errors in the list of Eithers.
Since you are using VAVr, you may consider using Traversable instead of Collection. This will give you the method partition, which can be used to classify your list of Eithers into two groups like so:
Traversable<Either<CalculationError, CalculationResult>> calculations = ...;
var partitionedCalcs = calculations.partition(Either::isRight);
var results = partitionedCalcs._1.map(Either::getRight);
var errors = partitionedCalcs._2.map(Either::getLeft);
Calculation calcs = new Calculation(results, errors);
If you don't want to change your existing use of Collection to use a Traversable, then you can easily convert between them by using, for example, List.ofAll(Iterator) and Value.toJavaCollection(Function).
I need to modify a local variable inside a lambda expression in a JButton's ActionListener and since I'm not able to modify it directly, I came across the AtomicInteger type.
I implemented it and it works just fine but I'm not sure if this is a good practice or if it is the correct way to solve this situation.
My code is the following:
newAnchorageButton.addActionListener(e -> {
AtomicInteger anchored = new AtomicInteger();
anchored.set(0);
cbSets.forEach(cbSet ->
cbSet.forEach(cb -> {
if (cb.isSelected())
anchored.incrementAndGet();
})
);
// more code where I use the 'anchored' variable...
}
I'm not sure if this is the right way to solve this since I've read that AtomicInteger is used mostly for concurrency-related applications and this program is single-threaded, but at the same time I can't find another way to solve this.
I could simply use two nested for-loops to go over those arrays but I'm trying to reduce the method's cognitive complexity as much as I can according to the sonarlint vscode extension, and leaving those for-loops theoretically increases the method complexity and therefore its readability and maintainability.
Replacing the for-loops with lambda expressions reduces the cognitive complexity but maybe I shouldn't pay that much attention to it.
While it is safe enough in single-threaded code, it would be better to count them in a functional way, like this:
long anchored = cbSets.stream() // get a stream of the sets
.flatMap(List::stream) // flatten to list of cb's
.filter(JCheckBox::isSelected) // only selected ones
.count(); // count them
Instead of mutating an accumulator, we limit the flattened stream to only the ones we're interested in and ask for the count.
More generally, though, it is always possible to sum things up or generally aggregate the values without a mutable variable. Consider:
record Country(int population) { }
countries.stream()
.mapToInt(Country::population)
.reduce(0, Math::addExact)
Note: we never mutate any values; instead, we combine each successive value with the preceding one, producing a new value. One could use sum() but I prefer reduce(0, Math::addExact) to avoid the possibility of overflow.
and leaving those for-loops theoretically increases the method complexity and therefore its readability and maintainability.
This is obvious horsepuckey. x.forEach(foo -> bar) is not 'cognitively simpler' than for (var foo : x) bar; - you can map each AST node straight over from one to the other.
If a definition is being used to define complexity which concludes that one is significantly more complex than the other, then the only correct conclusion is that the definition is silly and should be fixed or abandoned.
To make it practical: Yes, introducing AtomicInteger, whilst performance wise it won't make one iota of difference, does make the code way more complicated. AtomicInteger's simple existence in the code suggests that concurrency is relevant here. It isn't, so you'd have to add a comment to explain why you're using it. Comments are evil. (They imply the code does not speak for itself, and they cannot be tested in any way). They are often the least evil, but evil they are nonetheless.
The general 'trick' for keeping lambda-based code cognitively easily followed is to embrace the pipeline:
You write some code that 'forms' a stream. This can be as simple as list.stream(), but sometimes you do some stream joining or flatmapping a collection of collections.
You have a pipeline of operations that operate on single elements in the stream and do not refer to the whole or to any neighbour.
At the end, you reduce (using collect, reduce, max - some terminator) such that the reducing method returns what you need.
The above model (and the other answer follows it precisely) tends to result in code that is as readable/complex as the 'old style' code, and rarely (but sometimes!) more readable, and significantly less complicated. Deviate from it and the result is virtually always considerably more complicated - a clear loser.
Not all for loops in java fit the above model. If it doesn't fit, then trying to force that particular square peg into the round hole will take a lot of effort and almost always results in code that is significantly worse: Either an order of magnitude slower or considerably more cognitively complicated.
It also means that it is virtually never 'worth' rewriting perfectly fine readable non-stream based code into stream based code; at best it becomes a percentage point more readable according to some personal tastes, with no significant universally agreed upon improvement.
Turn off that silly linter rule. The fact that it considers the above 'less' complex, and that it evidently determines that for (var foo : x) bar; is 'more complicated' than x.forEach(foo -> bar) is proof enough that it's hurting way more than it is helping.
I have the following to add to the two other answers:
Two general good practices in your code are in question:
Lambdas shouldn't be longer than 3-4 lines
Except in some precise cases, lambdas of stream operations should be stateless.
For #1, consider extracting the code of the lambda to a private method for example, when it's getting too long.
You will probably gain in readability, and you will also probably gain in better separating UI from business logic.
For #2, you are probably not concerned since you are working in a single thread at the moment, but streams can be parallelized, and they may not always execute exactly as you think it does.
For that reason, it's always better to keep the code stateless in stream pipeline operations. Otherwise you might be surprised.
More generally, streams are very good, very concise, but sometimes it's just better to do the same with good old loops.
Don't hesitate to come back to classic loops.
When Sonar tells you that the complexity is too high, in fact, you should try to factorize your code: split into smaller methods, improve the model of your objects, etc.
I'm still learning Javaslang/Vavr, so excuse the ignorance. The project I'm working on is stuck on Javaslang 2.1.0.
My question: is there a more "Functional" way (as opposed to imperative style) to structure my code to join multiple Trys only once they are successful?
I want to Try each input independently, the idea being to get as much as possible error information - I do not want to stop on the first error encountered (so orElse() etc. won't do the trick). But once no errors are found any more, I want to do something further involving all of the inputs.
My current code looks like this (suitably anonymized):
Try<BigDecimal> amountTry = Try.of(this::readNumber)
.map(BigDecimal::valueOf)
.onFailure(this::collectError);
Try<Currency> currencyTry = Try.of(this::readString)
.map(currency -> currencyLookup(Currency.class, currency))
.onFailure(this::collectError);
if (amountTry.isSuccess() && currencyTry.isSuccess()) {
sale.setAmount(Amount.of(amountTry.get(), currencyTry.get()));
}
Can you suggest a pattern to replace the if() with something more in the functional style of programming?
The Javaslang/Vavr construct that you are looking for is the for comprehension construct, which is accessible through the API.For methods.
import javaslang.control.Try;
import static javaslang.API.For;
...
For(amountTry, currencyTry)
.yield(Amount::of)
.forEach(sale::setAmount);
That is, if both amountTry and currencyTry are non-empty, it creates an Iterable by yielding a result value on the cross-product of the two iterables, and performing an action on each of the resulting elements by invoking a Consumer. Here is the same in lambda form with explicit input types, if it helps you better understand it:
For(amountTry, currencyTry)
.yield((BigDecimal amount, Currency currency) -> Amount.of(amount, currency))
.forEach((Amount amount) -> sale.setAmount(amount));
Later versions of the library have overloads of the for comprehension for Try which will return a Try instance instead of Iterable, which makes the API a little bit nicer if you want to stay in Try domain.
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());
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 workaround 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). Anonymous inner class instances always keep a reference to their outer instance if created in a non-static context¹. In contrast, lambda expressions 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 non-capturing 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.
¹ From JDK 1.1 to JDK 17. Starting with JDK 18, inner classes may not retain a reference to the outer instance if it is not used. For compatibility reasons, this requires the inner class not be serializable. This only applies if you (re)compile the inner class under JDK 18 or newer with target JDK 18 or newer. See also JDK-8271717
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.
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.
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
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*/};
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
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.
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.
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.
Function composition and higher order functions.
Lambda functions can be used as building blocks towards building "higher order functions" or performing "function composition". Lambda functions can be seen as reusable building blocks in this sense.
Example of Higher Order Function via lambda:
Function<IntUnaryOperator, IntUnaryOperator> twice = f -> f.andThen(f);
IntUnaryOperator plusThree = i -> i + 3;
var g = twice.apply(plusThree);
System.out.println(g.applyAsInt(7))
Example Function Composition
Predicate<String> startsWithA = (text) -> text.startsWith("A");
Predicate<String> endsWithX = (text) -> text.endsWith("x");
Predicate<String> startsWithAAndEndsWithX =
(text) -> startsWithA.test(text) && endsWithX.test(text);
String input = "A hardworking person must relax";
boolean result = startsWithAAndEndsWithX.test(input);
System.out.println(result);
One benefit not yet mentioned is my favorite: lambdas make deferred execution really easy to write.
Log4j2 uses this for example, where instead of passing a value to conditionally log (a value that may have been expensive to calculate), you can now pass a lambda to calculate that expensive value. The difference being that before, that value was being calculated every time whether it got used or not, whereas now with lambdas if your log level decides not to log that statement, then the lambda never gets called, and that expensive calculation never takes place -- a performance boost!
Could that be done without lambdas? Yes, by surrounding each log statement with if() checks, or using verbose anonymous class syntax, but at the cost of horrible code noise.
Similar examples abound. Lambdas are like having your cake and eating it too: all the efficiency of gnarly multi-line optimized code squeezed down into the visual elegance of one-liners.
Edit: As requested by commenter, an example:
Old way, where expensiveCalculation() always gets called regardless of whether this log statement will actually use it:
logger.trace("expensive value was {}", expensiveCalculation());
New lambda efficient way, where expensiveCalculation() call won't happen unless trace log level is enabled:
logger.trace("expensive value was {}", () -> expensiveCalculation());