Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25941

Re: Java vs C++

Path	csiph.com!eeepc.pasdenom.info!news.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!exi-transit.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!exi-spool.telstra.net!exi-reader.telstra.net!not-for-mail
Date	Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:26:01 +1100
From	Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com>
Reply-To	not.esmond.pitt@not.bigpond.com
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version	1.0
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Java vs C++
References	<iijbfr$pb2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4d585c$0$81476$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <4d4d60dc$0$23763$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4d4d8322$0$41117$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <iil53i$q34$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iil5ed$10m$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iil74u$rac$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iil9uk$b6m$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iinara$2up$4@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4f43d9$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iink6l$87t$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4f56ac$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iinmra$9er$7@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4f61fb$0$23756$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iio27n$g2f$2@lust.ihug.co.nz>
In-Reply-To	<iio27n$g2f$2@lust.ihug.co.nz>
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
Lines	14
Message-ID	<4d507f8a$0$32793$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> (permalink)
NNTP-Posting-Host	120.151.14.51
X-Trace	1297121162 exi-reader.telstra.net 32793 120.151.14.51:38948
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25941

Show key headers only | View raw

On 7/02/2011 5:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> The Java designers wanted everything that C++ templates offered.

It should be obvious from the design that they wanted a great deal more 
than that. They wanted a coherent type system for a start, which C++ 
templates don't have, and they wanted compile-time safety, which 
*requires* a coherent type system. That's what all the T super X and T 
extends Y stuff is for - so the compiler can do type algebra. None of 
this appears in C++ whatsoever.

It is totally and utterly wrong misleading to think of Java Generics and 
C++ templates as similar. They are really polar opposites. C++ templates 
generate new types. Java Generics restrict existing types.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:08 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:19 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-02-09 01:07 +0800
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:44 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:53 +1300
      Re: Java vs C++ Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-02-08 10:25 +0000
        Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-08 07:53 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-02-08 10:26 +1100
        Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 16:17 +1300
          Re: Java vs C++ Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-02-08 16:51 +1100
      Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 22:06 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-06 22:42 -0800
      Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-07 21:20 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 22:07 -0500
        Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 19:07 +1300

csiph-web