Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>   Java supports generics.
> 
>> ...OK, I just learned something.
> 
>   Java generics are a bit ironical because before they existed the
> common consensus among Java people was that C++ templates are an
> abomination (in the same category as, for example, multiple inheritance,
> if not even worse).
> 
>   Of course this was before all the generic programming craze, and when
> it hit, the Java people had to swallow their pride and introduce some
> crippled template mechanism into Java. Naturally since templates were
> always considered an abomination they couldn't call them that, so they
> tried to save even a bit of their pride by renaming them to "generics".
> (I suppose "generics" rides more on the whole "generic programming"
> thing.)
> 
>   Of course Java generics are a bit crippled because they don't support
> basic types (such as int). Thus they solve only part of the problem which
> Java had before.

Well, actually Eiffel calls it generics too. I don't know when Eiffel 
was designed, but it's had generics from day 1, and that has always been 
its name.

I don't actually know how C++ templates work, but my take on it is this:

- Generics is the ability of a programming language to implement classes 
that are parameterised over another class.

- C++ implement this ability using templates.

- Templates can do other things besides implementing generics.

So to say that Java's generics is a crippled copy of C++'s template 
mechanism isn't entirely true.

OTOH, I haven't seen Java generics or C++ templates "for real", so maybe 
I'm mistaken.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message