4 ms·
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, typ
by 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 agoNo, 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 agoThat'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 agoOk I looked it up. You’re right. Kudos