> So, if you know Java has a similar syntax that is the same terseness, why mention it without example?
1. Because it's more limited in that it can only initialize an object and it requires that the type being initialized be non-final
2. Because it's kind-of a hack, using instance initializers (itself not a well-known feature) and anonymous classes (not overly common for concrete classes in java) simultanously
I also like to think people can be delighted in looking for treasures after a hint, and it's not too hard to find references to that trick, whereas references to Smalltalk's cascading operators are sparse and lost in the noise.
1. Because it's more limited in that it can only initialize an object and it requires that the type being initialized be non-final
2. Because it's kind-of a hack, using instance initializers (itself not a well-known feature) and anonymous classes (not overly common for concrete classes in java) simultanously
I also like to think people can be delighted in looking for treasures after a hint, and it's not too hard to find references to that trick, whereas references to Smalltalk's cascading operators are sparse and lost in the noise.