> On 4/11/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Templates' pros: >> > - support of primitive types; >> > - flexibility (ability to call non-virtual and non-related methods, >> > operators, etc); >> > - ability of coding for speed. >> > >> > Type erasure generics' pros: >> > - No additional generated code, no code bloat; >> > - Code is easier to understand (no additional trips for symbol >> resolution); >> > - Easy (possible ;-) to debug. >> > - Much easier to implement (in the compiler) ;-) > > First, I should have made it more clear that I meant: > - Templates = C++ templates = macros; > - Type erasure generics = Java generics = the template has an > equivalent _single_ class, for which templates parameters are resolved > by normal OO, and each "template instance" (e.g. TList<TItemType: > TComponent>) don't generate any additional code, the instance types > are only know at compile-time and checked and exposed for external > code. > > To summaryze yeat more: > Generics are much simpler to use and to implement, I'm afraid poeple > will overuse (and use badly) template flexibitlity, and there's no way > to implement 'properties' without getter methods when using "type > erasure" through templates.
The short answer on everything you say: Forget Java generics. FPC is a compiled language where not all types are classes. The only way to implement it is like C++ templates. It is a known fact that generics will introduce code bloat, but that is still less than the 15-20mb virtual machines you need for Java/C# _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
