Richard O'Keefe wrote: > On 17 Oct 2008, at 9:53 am, Daryoush Mehrtash wrote: > >> So does this mean that the reason for complexity of generics is the >> Java inheritance? > > No. The reason for the complexity of generics in Java is that > they weren't designed into the language in the first place. > It took several attempts and quite a lot of work to come up with > a version of generics that was 100% interoperable with earlier > JVMs *and* still worth having. > > You could have something very like Java generics but without > the strangeness if you designed it into the language from the > beginning, as Betrand Meyer did with Eiffel. Of course, what > _he_ didn't design in from the beginning was lambdas, now > present as "agents". Eiffel has its own kinds of strangeness. >
Or C# generics, which are built into the IL (in .Net 2.0 and above). In many ways, C# is a very nice language, and having generics fully supported in reflection is pretty cool. I do have some words to say about various ASP.Net libraries, however... _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
