3 ms·

Dunno, that's about as confusing as pointing out something has a string "type" and then using "type" again to refer to generic type parameter T. I'm sure someo

Dunno, that's about as confusing as pointing out something has a string "type" and then using "type" again to refer to generic type parameter T. I'm sure someone out there unfamiliar with types thinks it's inconsistent, but it's not really something you think about once you familiarize.

no_protocol 9y ago
> and then using "type" again to refer to generic type parameter T I was curious enough to grab a nearby textbook on Java. The author very clearly calls these things "type parameters" or "type variables". Imagine trying to write the whole chapter just calling them "types"..... "Your generic type will have two other types T and E and we will fill in Grape as type T and Fred as type E...." It'd be a disaster! Instead he's used clear language, every single time he refers to one of those things, he uses the specific term. Much better experience.