It's interesting (to me at least!) that Scala now has a way of working around erasure, the implicit Manifest[T] parameter, but that it wasn't made transparent, i.e., if you could do classOf[T] and have it compiled to something like manifest.getType that would make the code more readable.
Though more magical. So if Odersky never liked reification he probably doesn't want Scala to do it without it being explicit. In case my earlier mail was misread, I don't think erasure was a bad move. In fact it probably shook me out of writing reflection-heavy code at exactly the right time in my career. 2011/6/23 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Joseph Darcy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Note that today Odersky does *not* favor reified generics. >> >> He made this point explicitly in the recent past when he gave his >> "Future-proofing Scala collections: From mutable to persistent to >> parallel" talk at Stanford: >> http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/110601.html > > Indeed, and he's not alone. There is a lot of misinformation going on, > claiming that erasure was a terrible mistake. From what I've heard, most > experts agree that it was actually a pretty sensible decision, both from a > technical and backward compatibility standpoint. And there are actually very > few languages that support truly reified generics. > -- > 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. > -- 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.
