4 ms·
Java doesn't need to be, but frequently is. Non-reified generics with their ridiculously verbose syntax are the first thing that came to my mind. God forbid yo
by revscat 15y ago
Java doesn't need to be, but frequently is.
Non-reified generics with their ridiculously verbose syntax are the first thing that came to my mind. God forbid you should try to write your own class which uses them.
Not to mention that since spending almost decade of my career working with Java I have since worked with languages that do not have generics, and have not suffered thereby. Generics are, IMO, largely unnecessary.
Yes, this is a small subset of Java, but it is one that continually annoyed me.
- luriel 15y ago> Not to mention that since spending almost decade of my career working with Java I have since worked with languages that do not have generics, and have not suffered thereby. Generics are, IMO, largely unnecessary. This needs to be drilled into the heads of all the people complaining that Go has no generics before they have even tried to use it. (Also Go's interfaces overlap with many common uses of generics, and Go's useful builtin containers take care of most of the rest).
- soc88 15y agoThat people even had the idea that a "C replacement" doesn't need a way to define its own data structure is frightening.
- tsewlliw 15y agoJava generics _are_ ugly, but I'd rather write Java with them than without them.
- SeanLuke 15y agoI'm quite the other way around.