Comments on: Beware of type erasure in Java http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/ A blog on Technology Convergence Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:57:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: nasrullah http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-54899 nasrullah Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:42:44 +0000 http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-54899 Being an Ubuntu user I am very happy to visit your nice blog. Merc,i Avinash Being an Ubuntu user I am very happy to visit your nice blog.
Merc,i Avinash

]]> By: Eddy Young http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-53110 Eddy Young Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:53:29 +0000 http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-53110 @javed: Noticed that, too, but discarded it as a typo (like the capitalisation -- or lack of -- of the type parameter. @javed: Noticed that, too, but discarded it as a typo (like the capitalisation — or lack of — of the type parameter.

]]> By: avinash http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-53096 avinash Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:23:28 +0000 http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-53096 Or, now that I think of it, this does not really matter Javed as the program does not even compile :-) Or, now that I think of it, this does not really matter Javed as the program does not even compile :-)

]]> By: avinash http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-53095 avinash Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:22:44 +0000 http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-53095 Oops! Oops!

]]> By: javed mandary http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-53080 javed mandary Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:33:21 +0000 http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-53080 Hi, thats so really cool. By the way before your addAll your eggs and muffins don't forget to initialize those lists .. dont want to get a NullPointerException do you? Hi,
thats so really cool.

By the way before your addAll your eggs and muffins don’t forget to initialize those lists .. dont want to get a NullPointerException do you?

]]> By: avinash http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-53045 avinash Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:57:53 +0000 http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-53045 Yep. Generics in Java is a compiler feature which prevents people from adding eggs in lists of muffins. It also allows people to remove muffins from lists of muffins without going through the Object hassle (automatic boxing and unboxing). This is good enough I guess... for a static programming language. No need to throw Java away yet, Selven :-) Yep.

Generics in Java is a compiler feature which prevents people from adding eggs in lists of muffins.

It also allows people to remove muffins from lists of muffins without going through the Object hassle (automatic boxing and unboxing).

This is good enough I guess… for a static programming language.

No need to throw Java away yet, Selven :-)

]]> By: selven http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-52924 selven Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:04:53 +0000 http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-52924 hmmm that's not a big deal. Seeing the title i thought java had some major disadvantage and ppl have started accepting to throw that away. +$3| hmmm that’s not a big deal. Seeing the title i thought java had some major disadvantage and ppl have started accepting to throw that away.

+$3|

]]> By: Eddy Young http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-52921 Eddy Young Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:34:39 +0000 http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-52921 Well, let's take a packaging example. You can have an "egg packaging" or you could have a "package holding eggs". In the first case, the packaging would be egg-shaped to hold just eggs, whereas in the second case you're merely saying, "careful there are eggs in this box". Generics does the second. Strong-typing does the first. Well, let’s take a packaging example. You can have an “egg packaging” or you could have a “package holding eggs”. In the first case, the packaging would be egg-shaped to hold just eggs, whereas in the second case you’re merely saying, “careful there are eggs in this box”.

Generics does the second. Strong-typing does the first.

]]> By: avinash http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-52913 avinash Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:16:49 +0000 http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-52913 Yes, As Madhav and Eddy pointed out, this behavior is perfectly understandable but, still, I was amazed because of my dynamic language background. It feels so, ahem, <em>bizarre</em> that List<Egg> is not a type... Yes,

As Madhav and Eddy pointed out, this behavior is perfectly understandable but, still, I was amazed because of my dynamic language background.

It feels so, ahem, bizarre that List<Egg> is not a type…

]]> By: Eddy Young http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-52881 Eddy Young Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:49:29 +0000 http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2007/10/14/beware-of-type-erasure-in-java/#comment-52881 All the < and > in my comment have been interpreted as HTML, so that part of it does not make any sense. What I meant above is, had Java Generics been implemented for parameterised types to be completely different, backward compatibility would have been broken. In existing programs, a method expecting a "list of objects" as argument will no longer work with a "list of eggs". --- Eddy All the < and > in my comment have been interpreted as HTML, so that part of it does not make any sense.

What I meant above is, had Java Generics been implemented for parameterised types to be completely different, backward compatibility would have been broken. In existing programs, a method expecting a “list of objects” as argument will no longer work with a “list of eggs”.

— Eddy

]]>