> I would argue that the real problem with Java's rollout of generics is at the language level. The language itself introduced some strange gaps in the semantic

> I would argue that the real problem with Java's rollout of generics is at the language level. The language itself introduced some strange gaps in the semantics of generics, such as failing to build any decent bridges between arrays and generic collections. I don't know that this was necessary. It was necessary. Java made the mistake of letting primitive arrays be (incorrectly) covariant in their type param. Java's implementation of generics is, fortunately, correct in how it handles type parameter variance. However, this means that they are incompatible with Java's primitive arrays. I don't think there is a way to "bridge" them seamlessly without making generics unsound.