Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26199

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 16:51:53 +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> <4d507f8a$0$32793$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <iiqcjh$qt4$5@lust.ihug.co.nz>
In-Reply-To	<iiqcjh$qt4$5@lust.ihug.co.nz>
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
Lines	11
Message-ID	<4d50d9fa$0$32794$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> (permalink)
NNTP-Posting-Host	120.151.14.51
X-Trace	1297144314 exi-reader.telstra.net 32794 120.151.14.51:34569
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:26199

Show key headers only | View raw

On 8/02/2011 2:17 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In that case, they went backwards. Because the whole “raw types” concept
> detracts from and weakens the coherence of the type system.

It provides backwards compatibility. Without that the product would be 
unusable. It is possible to wish that the entire product was designed at 
the same time, but it wasn't. In any case your contention was mistaken.

The designers also went forwards a very considerable distance by 
providing generic classes that have provable type relationships among 
them. C++ simply doesn't have that. You need to stop overlooking this point.

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 15:53 +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