Wenn mein Sohn schon im Internet auftaucht, sollte ich wenigstens darauf verlinken 8-)
Florian war eines von sechs Kindern, die in "Jünters Welt" - der Kinderecke der Webseiten von Borussia Mönchengladbach - Fußballbegriffe erklären sollten.
Von einigen Antworten bin ich beinahe so überrascht wie Jünter.
Pfad: /de/persoenlich/familie | #
At first glance Generics in Java and .NET are very similar: neither of both gets anywhere close to what C++ templates can do and their inventors see the primary use in collections or holder classes (like Java's SoftReference or .NET's Nullable).
Under the covers they are very different. In Java, Generics don't really exist in your byte-code, the Java compiler knows and sees the generic types, but after that they've been "erased". In .NET on the other hand the generic type is completely known at runtime, there even are reflection methods for accessing the generic types or creating new instances of generic classes passing in a type.
As a result, the .NET implementation doesn't suffer from some of the problems erasure exhibits in Java land. Mixing of generics and varargs for example - the code below is perfectly legal:
public class CompositeCollection<E> : ICollection<E> {
public void AddComposited(params ICollection<E>[] colls) {
...
}
...
}
As a side note on Stephen Colebourne's later
post, an array T[] not only implements
IEnumerable<T> it even implements
IList<T> in .NET 2.0.
Without erasure it is also possible to implement the same generic interface twice using different type parameters:
class StringifiedInteger : IComparable<string>, IComparable<int> {
Yes, you can use value types (primitives) as type parameters as
well, List<int> just works. Without boxing, that
is.
This may sound as if the .NET generics were superior to Java's in each and every way, this is not completely true.
Part of the reason for erasure was that you could pass your
type-safe generic collection classes to unsuspecting legacy code that
wanted to work on plain old collections. Microsoft didn't even try to
reach this point, instead they've added a new namespace
System.Collections.Generic (and VS2005 will remind you
of it by adding a using clause for it to each and every
class you create - no, that doesn't annoy me, not at all, thank you)
and ICollection<T> doesn't even inherit from
ICollection.
One Java generics' feature I really miss in .NET and that isn't related to erasure at all is wildcard parameters. Stephen's CompositeCollection is a typical example for a method where wildcards would be useful. Given
public class CompositeCollection<E> extends Collection<E> {
public void addComposited(Collection<E> c) ...
}
CompositeCollection<Shape> shapes = new CompositeCollection<Shape>();
I won't be able to invoke addComposited with
ArrayList<Rectangle> - neither in Java nor using
the C# equivalent. In Java you'd use a wildcard type parameter
public void addComposited(Collection<? extends E>) ...
instead and it works as intended.
Using C# you have to make the method generic itself and use what Microsoft calls a naked type constraint in the docs:
public void AddComposited<T>(ICollection<T> c) where T : E ...
and invoke it like
CompositeCollection<Shape> shapes = new CompositeCollection<Shape>();
shapes.AddComposited(new List<Rectangle>());
fortunately the compiler (both Microsoft's csc as well as Mono's gmcs compiler) is smart enough to infer the method's type parameter from the argument. Still I feel the "collection of unknowns" is expressed in Java in a better way.
path: /en/dotNet | #