On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Luke B <[email protected]> wrote: > Uh oh, I feel like this is turning into a Java vs. DotNet culture debate > here, and I really don't care enough about either side to get into that. All > I'm saying is that I like the way Java lets you directly access a generic > class without refering to the type in it. Don't like my example? Fine, make > it static Mug.MugsInUse, which is incremented each time a constructor is > called. Unlike topology, that would change. My point is the same. Now could > that be done another way? Sure. I could have a MugInUse counter class or > whatever. At a technical level, it doesn't matter, it would work as well, > there are a million ways to make it work. Its about what's intuitive, what > sits easy in the mind. And what sits easy in my mind is that, a List is a > List whether its of groceries or things to do, and a Mug is a Mug whether it > has Cocoa in it or Coffee. And I should be able to refer to a List or Mug as > an entity regardless of what they contain. > But whatever, this is just my observation. And I'm pretty new to DotNet, I > may yet "see the light". Give me 6 months of getting used to DotNet and if I > still see things the same way, I'll come back and we'll have a real debate > on it. :)
I can see that side of things. I'm just more of a technical person, so seeing List<T> as a "blueprint" type and List<string> as a concrete type using that blueprint seems intuitive to me. Then it naturally follows that List<string>.StaticMember and List<object>.StaticMember are different properties. It's probably more of a "how your brain works" thing than an actual design advantage for either framework. -- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
