On 3 October 2012 22:43, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think you mean variance, not inheritance. And didn't that change happen > to C# between 2 and 3 or 3 and 4, the addition of in and out in type > parameter declarations? > > Yup, I did. Not sure I can get away with blaming that one on autocorrect either :) > If it happened for C#, and C# uses reified types, then reification in Java > shouldn't be a reason the same type system change would be impossible for > Java. > It would be tricky if Java had already codified use-site variance at the bytecode level, then subsequently moved to add declaration-site variance. Not impossible, just challenging. > On Oct 3, 2012 6:37 PM, "Kevin Wright" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > -- > 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. > -- Kevin Wright mail: [email protected] gtalk / msn : [email protected] quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright google+: http://gplus.to/thecoda <[email protected]> twitter: @thecoda vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright steam: kev_lee_wright "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra -- 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.
