Re: Class<T> question

I look at generics  like any other tool.    Used right theya re handy
but they arent the answer to every issue.

JK


James Childers wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Attila Szegedi wrote:
>
>> In my recent wrestling with "genericizing" a codebase that was
>> originally pre-Java 5, I'd suggest you try replacing "Class" with
>> "Class<?>".
>>
>> Alternatively, disable compiler warning for generics. No, seriously.
>> Honestly, my feeling is that programming with generics causes more
>> noise in source code than it eliminates. Yeah, it eliminates casts,
>> but previously I would write:
>>
>> Map map = new HashMap();
>> ...
>> String x = (String)map.get(blah);
>>
>> Now I write monstrosities such as:
>>
>> Map<? extends Object, String> map = new HashMap<Object, String>();
>> ...
>> String x = map.get(blah);
>>
>> So, I need to write one cast less, and four type specifiers more. Net
>> loss in code conciseness.
>> I guess I'm just getting old and resistant to change.
>
> Java generic syntax is notoriously verbose. Neil Gafter recently
> offered a couple of proposals for a more concise syntax:
>
> http://gafter.blogspot.com/2007/07/constructor-type-inference.html
>
> From his proposals:
>
> map := new HashMap<String,List<Thing>>();
>
> Or alternatively:
>
> Map<String,List<Thing>> map = new HashMap<>();
>
> In the former case the assigned type is HashMap, which prevents
> programming to interfaces. It also introduces a new operator.
>
> The second case simply relies upon inference of the proper generic
> types.
>
> -= James
>
> ===================================
> This list is hosted by DevelopMentor®  http://www.develop.com
>
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> http://discuss.develop.com

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor®  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com