Hi Russel, On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote:
> Perhaps the JVM could then support type parameters and the abomination > that is type erasure could be dispensed with. > I'm surprised by the intensity of your statement, it's quite unusual coming from you :-) In a regular Java code base, I would say that the amount of reflection is very low, probably 5% or less (already a generous number in my opinion, since most of it is probably because of annotations). Out of these 5%, how much really needs access to erased type information? That number is probably vanishingly small. And the thing is: if you really need this information, you can have it to some extent with - getGenericType - Or even better, the very clever TypeLiteral<http://google-guice.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/javadoc/com/google/inject/TypeLiteral.html> . Overall, I think erasure has worked very well in practice, so I'm curious to hear why you think it's such a disaster? -- Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
