On 06/23/2011 10:41 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Joseph Darcy <[email protected]
<mailto:[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.
+1. Backward compatibility was and is important, so erasure was needed
(unless somebody demonstrates me that it was possible to stay backward
compatible in a better way). And I agree with Ricky, there are some
corner cases, the specs are way too complex, but in 90% of scenarios
generics work well. Again, somebody should demonstrate that it was
possible to do that in a better way.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
[email protected]
--
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.
