<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<title>Comments for A Gentle Introduction to Generics in Java by Charlie Calvert</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/plain" href="http://dn.codegear.com/article/32054" title="A Gentle Introduction to Generics in Java by Charlie Calvert" />
<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://dn.codegear.com/article/32054/feed" title="Comments for A Gentle Introduction to Generics in Java by Charlie Calvert" />
<id>http://dn.codegear.com/article/32054</id>
<updated>2008-12-04T11:45:01-08:00</updated>
<entry>
<title>A Gentle Introduction to Generics in Java</title>
<author>
<name>Craven Weasel</name>
<uri>http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/userall?commentid=36585</uri>
</author>
<id>http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=36585</id>
<updated>2004-04-30T08:26:45-07:00</updated>
<published>2004-04-30T08:26:45-07:00</published>
<summary>A Gentle Introduction to Generics in Java</summary>
<content>Is there an error in the code? &quot;int&quot; should be &quot;Integer&quot;</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>C'mon, Charlie, Java genericity is pathetic</title>
<author>
<name>Ian Marteens</name>
<uri>http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/userall?commentid=36491</uri>
</author>
<id>http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=36491</id>
<updated>2004-04-15T16:23:37-07:00</updated>
<published>2004-04-15T16:23:37-07:00</published>
<summary>C'mon, Charlie, Java genericity is pathetic</summary>
<content>Basically, generic classes in Java are a cheap preprocessing trick and, since the Java Virtual Machine has not been modified at all to support genericity, a very expensive trick, indeed. Every time you manipulate a field declared with the formal type parameter, the compiler needs to insert some dynamic type checking and casting... or you end up with non verifiable bytecodes. And something similar happens with value type: they must be dynamically converted to the corresponding reference values before assigning generic fields and properties.Even more: when you compile and instantiate a generic class in Java, there's no semantic information about this fact in the RTTI. Code Insight, for instance, would have a very bad time when forced to provide information for such constructions.Sorry, this is another shot in his own leg, by S.M., &quot;master of pain&quot;, and his tribe...</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Only C++ and Python?</title>
<author>
<name>Tom Slavens</name>
<uri>http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/userall?commentid=36486</uri>
</author>
<id>http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=36486</id>
<updated>2004-04-14T15:38:48-07:00</updated>
<published>2004-04-14T15:38:48-07:00</published>
<summary>Only C++ and Python?</summary>
<content>Charlie,The article abstract states &quot;Formerly generics were only available to C++ and Python programmers&quot;.  Perhaps you've been victimized by over-zealous editing before the article was posted.  There are several other languages that support generic programming - Ada &amp; Eiffel come to mind immediately.</content>
</entry>
</feed>
