Linked by Rüdiger Klaehn on Thu 5th Aug 2004 05:00 UTC
One of the most awaited features of Microsoft .NET 2.0 is generics. Generics promise to increase type safety, improve performance, reduce code duplication and eliminate unnessecary casts. The most obvious application of generics in the framework class library are the generic collections in the new System.Collections.Generic namespace. Much has been written about those, but they are not the topic of this article.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
There is a series of flaws in the current article: not very-well researched (restricted generics where thoroughly studied to inclusion in c++ during the last ISO std round)
So? As the author says in the article, he wants to explore why .NET generics are not suitable for numerical programming. Mentioning what you suggest seems highly off-topic.
weak/incorrect comparisons with c++
What exactly are the weak/incorrect comparisons?
boxing/unboxing not mentioned/considered.
Why should he mention boxing/unboxing? Again, the article is about a problem of .NET generics and not about their benefits.
Regards,
Andreas