Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)
From: Gerry Quinn (gerryq_at_DELETETHISindigo.ie)
Date: 07/11/04
- Next message: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management"
- Previous message: Nick Malik: "Re: Estimate of hours to be spent on a project"
- In reply to: Steven T Abell: "Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:54:19 +0100
In article <18xHc.16$yN1.13@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
newsgroup@brising.com says...
> > I'm not addressing your main point, but the specific case of the new generics
> > (and covariant returns) in Java 1.5 is relevant.
>
> Generics in Java are an apology for having collections of Objects,
> and are somewhat like the puritan's suspicion
> that someone, somewhere, might be enjoying themselves.
More of a fix - or attempted fix - for the stupid casting that is
needed.
C++ templates may not be easy to write in the first place, but they sure
are great to use:
Basket< Cat > catBasket;
catBasket.add( cat1 );
catBasket.add( cat2 );
Cat cat = catBasket.take_one();
No need for a cast! No possibility of accidentally adding dogs!
- Gerry Quinn
- Next message: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management"
- Previous message: Nick Malik: "Re: Estimate of hours to be spent on a project"
- In reply to: Steven T Abell: "Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]