Linked by vodoomoth on Fri 24th Sep 2010 22:56 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 442655
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: the less the better
by ebasconp on Sat 25th Sep 2010 14:13
in reply to "RE[3]: the less the better"
RE[4]: the less the better
by moondevil on Sun 26th Sep 2010 06:30
in reply to "RE[3]: the less the better"
RE[5]: the less the better
by snowbender on Sun 26th Sep 2010 20:47
in reply to "RE[4]: the less the better"
Can you explain that?
As long as they put new generic classes in new namespaces, and leave the old non-generic classes as is, you would preserve backwards compatibility, no?
That is something that i never understood. I like generics, but i do think that in Java it is implemented as a hack. Not really as part of the language, but more something like a preprocessor for the compiler.





Member since:
2008-10-06
Too bad Java's generics suck so bad. They should have done them the same way that Microsoft did with C#.