Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I may not code in Python, but I think lambda expressions in java would be somewhat comparable to this. Not in functionality, but in similarity to the effect on code. Whenever I find code written by a previous team on my project, they abused the shit out of lambda expressions, just to "reduce lines" of code. They had multiple nesting lambdas together. Sure it made it 'smaller', but it also made the code absolutely hell to read. A for loop would have been bigger, but has greater readability potential. But the main issue is that they didn't use lambdas very well. They didn't use the right tool for the job, and used it just for the sake of doing it.<br>So the walrus operator reminds me of this. I probably wouldn't use it, but I don't think it should be a problem that it exists in the code. Many who opposed it probably won't use it. Those who are knowledgeable will probably use it right. And those who don't use it right will pay the price.... hopefully.<br><br>I guess that's where some of the concern lies. When other devs have to clean up someone else's mess.<br><br>Side note: thanks Lex for showing this. I had seen/used this operator when making AutoHotKey scripts, but didn't know what it was called lol.,(reply>), You should probably learn Haskell, everything is lambda and everything type checks,(reply>), IMO, just because you <b>can</b> abuse a language feature doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.,(reply>), @Adolf1Extra depending on what he was doing, the compiler could actually optimize it <i>better</i> than massive amounts of nested lambda expressions. Making code easier to read for you can sometimes also make it easier to read for the compiler.,(reply>), What difference would it make if you wrote the whole anonymous class instead of a simple lambda?<br>Just because you are writing Java doesn't mean you have to reach for every bit of verbosity you possibly can.,(reply>), @Fabian Evans Ah, that's quite interesting. I wonder how much of a performance savings it is during creation then.