> It's quite elegant that in general if I update a dependency and that > dependency has switched from raw types to generics, I generally have > nothing to do. With the .NET approach I would have to marshal between > old and new collection types constantly.
Yes but at least the semantics would be clear up front right there in the type-system and you'd avoid various pitfalls (Java developers are used to unsafe casts and unsafe array variance) as well as pave the way for a deprecation/migration strategy. Sometimes something must die in order to leave the way for something new, or all we get are zombies. -- 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.
