On 14/03/2012 03:42 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 14.03.2012 10:42, schrieb Invisible:
>
>> It seems either they implemented everything twice (once with, and once
>> without generics), or it's actually legal to not specify type parameters
>> and then they default to Object. Which, either way, is highly
>> counter-intuitive...
>
> It's actually that they /first/ implemented the stuff as non-generics
> (because Java didn't have them back then), and then added a generics
> implementation later when they discovered that generics were a good
> thing to have after all (retaining the old non-generics implementation
> for backward compatibility).

Backwards compatibility is pretty evil, eh? ;-)

Post a reply to this message