The semantics are pretty clear, as you get compile errors when you get things wrong.
Java developers *were* used to unsafe casts. I'm regularly in ##java on freenode IRC and see fewer and fewer people trying to use untyped collections. It still happens, though mainly by accident. I've seen some new Java code using untyped Vectors and Hashtables recently, but a) the [ir]responsible developers just left b) that would have happened no matter what Java had done short of removing Vector and Hashtable. -- Skype: ricky_clarkson UK phone (forwards to Skype): 0161 408 5260 On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > -- 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.
