On 02/24/2013 05:20 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/24/13 1:50 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/24/2013 04:59 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
...
D is much different (and better IMO)
...
IMO The best way to think about it is that the two approaches are not
comparable. D templates are a kind of hygienic macro system for
declarations. Java does not have this. Java generics make the type
system more expressive. D lacks this kind of expressiveness.
I'd think type erasure techniques make it possible to emulate Java's
generics in D,
The compile-time type checking and avoidance of type erasure in user
code aspects are the only important features of Java generics. This is
most obvious noting that pre-generic Java also supports the techniques
you mention.
whereas D's templates can't be emulated in Java.
If type erasure is considered a means to emulate generics in D, then
IMHO copy pasta should also be considered a means to emulate templates
in Java. Otherwise the viewpoint could be considered biased. But I think
usually they just use external code generation frameworks.
