They may be part of the standard library now, but as far as I know, they weren't when I moved to Java a decade ago.
Thanks for the pointer to Scala. I just read the "Scala Tutorial for Java Programmers," and although some commenters insist that Scala is both more powerful and more consistent than Java, they never back up that assertion. From what I've read, I'm not sure why I'd want to switch. This just looks like another case of people inventing some rarefied, arcane complications to a working language ("our language implements reverse back-encabulation") and declaring that this "fixes" some supposed flaw in the original language (that somehow never stopped anyone from writing readable working code).
I'm not blind to Java's faults. In particular I don't like how it's gotten progressively fussier from v5 on, adding ever more baroque syntactic and notional requirements in the way of just banging out code. (And do not get me started on Sun selling out to Oracle.)
What I really want, if I must learn some new language, is what might be called a "meat-and-potatoes" language. I want a language that provides the core toolkit of straightforward procedural programming -- variables, control structures, functions -- in a concise but readable and consistent format, and that doesn't waste my time pretending that some bit of theoretical Computer Science filigree is going to substantively help me get from idea to code. And then I want whoever created this language to leave it alone
instead of making things up to add and remove and change because they have to sell upgrades to stay in business.
Meanwhile, I'm waiting to see what Josh's node-based programming looks like.
Sorry, were we talking about Space Engine...?