Suggestions for Java Generics Semantics in Java Version 7.0 _ Resurrected (original) (raw)
Alex Buckley Alex.Buckley at Sun.COM
Wed Jun 17 12:21:40 PDT 2009
- Previous message: JDK 7 master forest broken; rollback imminent
- Next message: Suggestions for Java Generics Semantics in Java Version 7.0 _ Resurrected
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sun's bug database categorizes an entry as either a defect or a request for enhancement. Bug 5098163 is, rightly, a request for enhancement. It is not a defect that type erasure exists. I will say that again. Type erasure is not a bug. It is a feature.
The reason it is a feature is that many experts - including but not limited to Philip Wadler, Martin Odersky, Gilad Bracha, Joshua Bloch, and Neal Gafter - worked for many years on crafting a generic type system that allowed people to migrate their non-generic clients and libraries smoothly. Reified generics would have made that migration more complex. If you don't know why, find out.
While there were good reasons for avoiding it, there is no doubt that reified generics make the Java language itself more regular. No doubt at all. The question we face TODAY is, are reified generics MORE valuable than other features that Sun can add to the Java platform. Evidently not, since Sun is working on other features.
Again, I don't want to prolong this conversation, but perhaps you could say which JDK7 feature(s) you would drop to make room for reified generics? You can choose from the list at http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/features/
Alex
- Previous message: JDK 7 master forest broken; rollback imminent
- Next message: Suggestions for Java Generics Semantics in Java Version 7.0 _ Resurrected
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]