Hmm, Google Groups hickup again. My initial reply from 3:16 is listed as *latest entry*, after the one made at 4:21pm. So if what I write don't make sense, please blame Google. :)
/Casper On Jun 24, 3:16 pm, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think type erasure was an error, I would have preferred no generics to > > what we have. I agree though that few languages that claim to have > > properly supported parameterized types do. > > I'm with you on that. Erasure introduces an unnecessary duality in the > type-system where you read one thing, but the compiler and runtime > really sees something else! One can not write implements > Comparable<T>,Comparable<U>" because underneath the layer > of lipgloss it really reads "implements Comparable<Object>, > Comparable<Object>" due to the fact that the compiler is really > just injecting down-casts and type-checks plus some extra meta-data > solely for reflection purposes. > > At least in C#, you get what you see, plus they can do a whole lot of > performance optimization and code sharing. There's a decent comparison > at > Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_C_Sharp_and_Java#Generics > > Sometimes it's ok to draw a line in the sand and break with > comparability to fix something, Java could be much much more elegant > and lean today. > > /Casper -- 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.
