3 ms·

That's a Java thing, not a JVM thing. Try Kotlin for example.

• mruts 8y ago
  That’s not true. Type erasure is certainly a part of the JVM. I’m not familiar with Kotlin but maybe it does automatic type tagging? But in response to GP, type erasure sucks and makes a lot of things harder.
  • pron 8y ago
    > Type erasure is certainly a part of the JVM No, it is not. Most JVM languages (except Ceylon, I think) choose to erase generics, as that's the right thing to do if you want good polyglot interop.
    • mruts 8y ago
      No, I mean that the JVM itself doesn’t have opcodes for storing generics type info. Hence why it was done for backward compatability, they didn’t need to add or change instructions.
      • pron 8y ago
        That's incorrect. You could specialize classes on the fly (and the opcodes for all reference types are the same, anyway). It's just that it's a bad idea to reify generics of reference (and so subtypable) types. You gain little and lose much.
        • mruts 8y ago
          Ok I looked it up. You’re right. Kudos