On 31 August 2010 19:15, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote: > > I guess the questions are not so much can you survive with type erasure > on the JVM but are: > > 1. Did the CLR gain by supporting run time type parameters for generics? >
Good question, will anyone ever truly know the answer. IIRC, the CLR was still pretty young when MS added reified generics. So they had a MUCH smaller codebase of deployed applications where the breaking of backward compatibility would cause a problem > 2. Why were the annotations people allowed to amend the JVM when the > generics people were not? Because generics on the JVM long preceeded Generics in Java. First came the GJ language: http://lampwww.epfl.ch/gj/ (which was incidentally written by Martin Odersky, also of Scala fame) <http://lampwww.epfl.ch/gj/>This had Generics via erasure, but wasn't Java, so couldn't directly influence the JVM Later, the GJ compiler became the official Java compiler. But by that time, the technique of erasure had already been established. -- Kevin Wright mail/google talk: [email protected] wave: [email protected] skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- 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.
