On top of this, reification forces you to even some aspect of your type system at the byte code let level.
Imagine if Java already had reified generics, then decided to add declaration-site inheritance in the style of C# or Scala. It wouldn't be possible. The same goes for any new type system, such as dependent types or the union types proposed for Scala v3. You'd be out of luck! Farewell to potential future innovation... On Oct 3, 2012 9:39 PM, "Cédric Beust ♔" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Martijn Verburg <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Tentatively scheduled for 9 or 10 - I'd prefer to see 9 personally but >> appreciate its a non trivial change ;-) > > > But why? I'm still struggling to find out why some people feel so strongly > about the importance of reified generics. If you spend some time thinking > about the implications and costs of reified generics, you actually realize > that the need is rare and that even in such situations, type literals (or > similar) can get you very far, and that erasure comes with many more pros > and less cons than reified generics do. > > I captured these thoughts in this > article<http://beust.com/weblog/2011/07/29/erasure-vs-reification/>a while > ago, I'd love to hear if your use case for reified generics is not > covered there. > > -- > Cédric > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
