Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25530 > unrolled thread

Re: Java vs C++

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Java vs C++ Silvio <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-02-05 18:04 +0100
    Re: Java vs C++ Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-02-07 16:21 +0800
    Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:28 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 09:22 +1300
      Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-07 17:25 -0500
        Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 16:08 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:24 +1300
      Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:03 +1300
        Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 21:18 -0500
        Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:26 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:15 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:55 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-02-06 19:54 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:50 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-02-07 15:54 +0800
    Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 01:04 +0100
      Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:26 -0500
        Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 19:09 +1300
          Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-07 07:29 -0500
          Re: Java vs C++ "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-06 22:52 -0800
      Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 13:32 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-06 16:35 +0100
      Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:51 +1300
        Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 22:06 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:01 +1300
        Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 14:53 +0100
      Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:52 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-06 13:09 -0500
        Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 00:55 +0100
      Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:00 +1300
        Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 21:20 -0500
          Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:52 +1300
        Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:25 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:29 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 00:57 +0100
      Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 12:57 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 15:22 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-06 08:11 -0800
      Re: Java vs C++ Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-07 04:41 +0100
    Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 21:12 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:26 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 15:27 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-06 16:45 +0100
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:51 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#26222

In message <iincuv$ot9$1@news.belwue.de>, Thomas Richter wrote:

> There is no "ClassCastException" in C++.

Yes there is. It’s called “bad_cast”. Where do you think Java got the idea 
from?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25711

Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> On 02/05/2011 10:38 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message<4d4d8322$0$41117$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Silvio wrote:
>>
>>> And Lew is correct: templates and genercis are completely different
>>> beasts.
>>
>> “Completely” as in “having nothing in common”? Or is this some usage of
>> “completely” that I wasn’t aware of?
>>
>> Please explain.
> 
> Templates in C++ are basically advanced macros--each invocation of a 
> template type regenerates the class, so a Foo<int> and a Foo<double> are 
> two completely different things.

That's much more than a macro could do. Templates are a language of its 
own, include syntax checks, etc. Quite unlike macros, they do not 
substitute text patterns. Templates allow meta-programming, i.e. you can 
use the compiler to generate code. And, of course, templates are quite 
complex - very unlike the simple-minded preprocessor.

> Generics in Java are basically compile-time syntactic sugar to ensure 
> type-safety of container types at compile time instead of waiting until 
> you hit the code at runtime to get that dreaded ClassCastException.

Well, java had to take the route of type-erasure to allow generic 
progamming plus type checks because it wasn't part of the language to 
begin with, so it was "hacked" into the specs more or less. Generics are 
considerably less powerful, but also considerably easier than C++ 
templates. There's no metaprogramming with generics, and generics are 
mostly limited to containers which does not hold for C++ templates. They 
are quite different.

> About the only thing they share in common is the syntax, and even then, 
> C++ didn't allow A<B<C>> until C++0x (which, according to Bjarne 
> Stroustroup, took a bit of work to convince compiler vendors to accept).

I beg your pardon? C++ allows nested templates since C++99 and before. 
The only issue here is a notational one, namely that you had to write 
A<B<C> > (note the space behind B<C>) to avoid >> being parsed as a 
token (shifting, namely). That is the only thing that got fixed in 
C++0x, not nesting templates which is part of the language since C++99.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25715

In message <4d4f5813$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 06-02-2011 21:00, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<iimnes$dh2$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's a macro generator that understands types and is heavily integrated
>>> with the syntax of C++, but it is basically a way to automatically
>>> generate code.
>>
>> You seem to be confusing one particular way of implementing
>> generics/templates with the way the language feature is specified. Java
>> generics could be implemented by a preprocessor that spat out
>> first-edition Java code, for that matter.
> 
> Java generics could have been defined that way.
> 
> But they were not.

See, you cannot even distinguish between “defined” and “implemented”.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26211

On 06-02-2011 21:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<4d4f5813$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 06-02-2011 21:00, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> In message<iimnes$dh2$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer
>>> wrote:
>>>> It's a macro generator that understands types and is heavily integrated
>>>> with the syntax of C++, but it is basically a way to automatically
>>>> generate code.
>>>
>>> You seem to be confusing one particular way of implementing
>>> generics/templates with the way the language feature is specified. Java
>>> generics could be implemented by a preprocessor that spat out
>>> first-edition Java code, for that matter.
>>
>> Java generics could have been defined that way.
>>
>> But they were not.
>
> See, you cannot even distinguish between “defined” and “implemented”.

You does not seem to have understood how Java generics are defined.

Such an implementation would not have been compliant.

In fact I think it would have been useless.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25773

In message <iimf47$soo$1@news.belwue.de>, Thomas Richter wrote:

> Templates allow meta-programming, i.e. you can use the compiler to
> generate code.

Why, what do compilers normally do?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26135

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <iimf47$soo$1@news.belwue.de>, Thomas Richter wrote:
> 
>> Templates allow meta-programming, i.e. you can use the compiler to
>> generate code.
> 
> Why, what do compilers normally do?

Generate source code, or rather, evaluate expressions at compile time 
rather than run time. Compilers usually take the source code and create 
executable code from that, but the C++ template system allows you to 
instruct the compiler to do parts of this evaluation while compiling.

So long,
	Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25790

On 06-02-2011 10:35, Thomas Richter wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> Templates in C++ are basically advanced macros--each invocation of a
>> template type regenerates the class, so a Foo<int> and a Foo<double>
>> are two completely different things.
>
> That's much more than a macro could do. Templates are a language of its
> own, include syntax checks, etc. Quite unlike macros, they do not
> substitute text patterns. Templates allow meta-programming, i.e. you can
> use the compiler to generate code. And, of course, templates are quite
> complex - very unlike the simple-minded preprocessor.

C++ templates are like many other C++ features very powerful.

You can create some very elegant solution or make a big hole
in your foot with it.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25794

We could end this entire thread right now by conceding that, yes, C++ is 
clearly the superior language over Java, just like Esperanto is over English, 
unless, of course, you actually want to accomplish something, but all 
analogies break down somewhere, right?

Anyway, just tell the OP that he's right, C++ is wonderful and Java is crap, 
and all those thousands more Java jobs out there can go to those of us 
impurists.  C++ invented everything and Java is a poor stepchild, and if 
imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then Java just gave C++ the 
finger.  He's right, we're wrong - he need learn nothing new and we praise him 
with angels' song and rose petals.

C++ rules, Java drools!

Can we stop talking about C++ now?  You know it only makes us poor 
stepchildren embarrassed and to feel clumsy, contemplating how much worse our 
language of choice is than the One True Way, so stop rubbing our noses in it, 
please.  Let's just talk about Java as Java so we may be shielded from the 
blinding light of knowledge of our insignificance compared to those of the C++ 
world.  Leave us benighted souls to our dark Java Hades and burn us not with 
the C++ Sun!

Again, C++ rules, Java drools!  Done.  QED.  You win.  Move on.

-- 
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une fenêtre.
.___________.
|###] | [###|
|##/  | *\##|
|#/ * |   \#|
|#----|----#|
||    |  * ||
|o *  |    o|
|_____|_____|
|===========|

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26122

Lew wrote:
> We could end this entire thread right now by conceding that, yes, C++ is 
> clearly the superior language over Java, just like Esperanto is over 
> English, unless, of course, you actually want to accomplish something, 
> but all analogies break down somewhere, right?

Who said this, and where? I did not mean to say this implication. Java 
often took the path of providing a more accessible language than C++, 
maybe for good reasons since C++ has quite some complexity. But 
templates are not generics, and I'm not aware that you can use them for 
metaprogramming. Whether you *want* to use metaprogramming, well, that's 
a different question.

So long,

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25815

In message <iimnes$dh2$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:

> It's a macro generator that understands types and is heavily integrated
> with the syntax of C++, but it is basically a way to automatically
> generate code.

You seem to be confusing one particular way of implementing 
generics/templates with the way the language feature is specified. Java 
generics could be implemented by a preprocessor that spat out first-edition 
Java code, for that matter. In fact, it effectively does, since the JVM 
seems to know nothing about generics. Would you then say that third-edition 
Java is nothing more than a “macro generator”?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26051

On 02/06/2011 09:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<iimnes$dh2$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>
>> It's a macro generator that understands types and is heavily integrated
>> with the syntax of C++, but it is basically a way to automatically
>> generate code.
>
> You seem to be confusing one particular way of implementing
> generics/templates with the way the language feature is specified. Java
> generics could be implemented by a preprocessor that spat out first-edition
> Java code, for that matter. In fact, it effectively does, since the JVM
> seems to know nothing about generics. Would you then say that third-edition
> Java is nothing more than a “macro generator”?

I make a minor distinction between syntactic sugar--a language feature 
which is designed to replace specific syntax features for ease of coding 
(e.g., for-each loops)--and macro processing, which is generally 
unrestricted code or text generation. Generics are syntactic sugar, in 
that it only generates code in a "few" select places as opposed to 
wholesale code production.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26098

In message <iinku4$tbg$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:

> On 02/06/2011 09:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<iimnes$dh2$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a macro generator that understands types and is heavily integrated
>>> with the syntax of C++, but it is basically a way to automatically
>>> generate code.
>>
>> You seem to be confusing one particular way of implementing
>> generics/templates with the way the language feature is specified. Java
>> generics could be implemented by a preprocessor that spat out
>> first-edition Java code, for that matter. In fact, it effectively does,
>> since the JVM seems to know nothing about generics. Would you then say
>> that third-edition Java is nothing more than a “macro generator”?
> 
> I make a minor distinction between syntactic sugar--a language feature
> which is designed to replace specific syntax features for ease of coding
> (e.g., for-each loops)--and macro processing, which is generally
> unrestricted code or text generation.

In that case, C++ templates are most certainly not macros.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26072

On 06-02-2011 21:00, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<iimnes$dh2$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> It's a macro generator that understands types and is heavily integrated
>> with the syntax of C++, but it is basically a way to automatically
>> generate code.
>
> You seem to be confusing one particular way of implementing
> generics/templates with the way the language feature is specified. Java
> generics could be implemented by a preprocessor that spat out first-edition
> Java code, for that matter.

Java generics could have been defined that way.

But they were not.

A generic Java class get compiled to a single
set of byte code.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25817

On 06-02-2011 18:57, Thomas Richter wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>>> Well, java had to take the route of type-erasure to allow generic
>>> progamming plus type checks because it wasn't part of the language to
>>> begin with, so it was "hacked" into the specs more or less. Generics are
>>> considerably less powerful, but also considerably easier than C++
>>> templates. There's no metaprogramming with generics, and generics are
>>> mostly limited to containers which does not hold for C++ templates. They
>>> are quite different.
>>
>> Java generics are useful for more than containers.
>>
>> It just get complex when used for more than containers.
>
> Well, I didn't mean to say something else (see, I wrote "mostly", not
> "only"), but nevertheless, could you provide an example?

     public static <T extends Comparable<? super T>> T Max(T a, T b) {
         if (a == null) return b;
         if (b == null) return a;
         if (a.compareTo(b) >= 0)
             return a;
         else return b;
     }

>>>> About the only thing they share in common is the syntax, and even
>>>> then, C++ didn't allow A<B<C>> until C++0x (which, according to Bjarne
>>>> Stroustroup, took a bit of work to convince compiler vendors to
>>>> accept).
>>>
>>> I beg your pardon? C++ allows nested templates since C++99 and before.
>>> The only issue here is a notational one, namely that you had to write
>>> A<B<C> > (note the space behind B<C>) to avoid >> being parsed as a
>>> token (shifting, namely). That is the only thing that got fixed in
>>> C++0x, not nesting templates which is part of the language since C++99.
>>
>> Joshua did not claim otherwise.
>
> This was at least worded in a very misleading way.

How can specific syntax be misleading?

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25818

Arne Vajhøj wrote:

>> Well, java had to take the route of type-erasure to allow generic
>> progamming plus type checks because it wasn't part of the language to
>> begin with, so it was "hacked" into the specs more or less. Generics are
>> considerably less powerful, but also considerably easier than C++
>> templates. There's no metaprogramming with generics, and generics are
>> mostly limited to containers which does not hold for C++ templates. They
>> are quite different.
> 
> Java generics are useful for more than containers.
> 
> It just get complex when used for more than containers.

Well, I didn't mean to say something else (see, I wrote "mostly", not 
"only"), but nevertheless, could you provide an example?

>>> About the only thing they share in common is the syntax, and even
>>> then, C++ didn't allow A<B<C>> until C++0x (which, according to Bjarne
>>> Stroustroup, took a bit of work to convince compiler vendors to accept).
>>
>> I beg your pardon? C++ allows nested templates since C++99 and before.
>> The only issue here is a notational one, namely that you had to write
>> A<B<C> > (note the space behind B<C>) to avoid >> being parsed as a
>> token (shifting, namely). That is the only thing that got fixed in
>> C++0x, not nesting templates which is part of the language since C++99.
> 
> Joshua did not claim otherwise.

This was at least worded in a very misleading way.

So long,
	Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25838

On 02/06/2011 10:35 AM, Thomas Richter wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> Templates in C++ are basically advanced macros--each invocation of a
>> template type regenerates the class, so a Foo<int> and a Foo<double>
>> are two completely different things.
>
> That's much more than a macro could do. Templates are a language of its
> own, include syntax checks, etc. Quite unlike macros, they do not
> substitute text patterns. Templates allow meta-programming, i.e. you can
> use the compiler to generate code. And, of course, templates are quite
> complex - very unlike the simple-minded preprocessor.

It is the code generation that I'm referring to as "an advanced macro". 
It's a macro generator that understands types and is heavily integrated 
with the syntax of C++, but it is basically a way to automatically 
generate code.

> I beg your pardon? C++ allows nested templates since C++99 and before.
> The only issue here is a notational one, namely that you had to write
> A<B<C> > (note the space behind B<C>) to avoid >> being parsed as a
> token (shifting, namely). That is the only thing that got fixed in
> C++0x, not nesting templates which is part of the language since C++99.

I was specifically referring to the ability to use >> instead of > >.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26089

On 06-02-2011 10:35, Thomas Richter wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> Generics in Java are basically compile-time syntactic sugar to ensure
>> type-safety of container types at compile time instead of waiting
>> until you hit the code at runtime to get that dreaded ClassCastException.
>
> Well, java had to take the route of type-erasure to allow generic
> progamming plus type checks because it wasn't part of the language to
> begin with, so it was "hacked" into the specs more or less. Generics are
> considerably less powerful, but also considerably easier than C++
> templates. There's no metaprogramming with generics, and generics are
> mostly limited to containers which does not hold for C++ templates. They
> are quite different.

Java generics are useful for more than containers.

It just get complex when used for more than containers.

>> About the only thing they share in common is the syntax, and even
>> then, C++ didn't allow A<B<C>> until C++0x (which, according to Bjarne
>> Stroustroup, took a bit of work to convince compiler vendors to accept).
>
> I beg your pardon? C++ allows nested templates since C++99 and before.
> The only issue here is a notational one, namely that you had to write
> A<B<C> > (note the space behind B<C>) to avoid >> being parsed as a
> token (shifting, namely). That is the only thing that got fixed in
> C++0x, not nesting templates which is part of the language since C++99.

Joshua did not claim otherwise.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26142

"Thomas Richter" <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote in message 
news:iimf47$soo$1@news.belwue.de...
>
> I beg your pardon? C++ allows nested templates since C++99 and before. The 
> only issue here is a notational one, namely that you had to write A<B<C> > 
> (note the space behind B<C>) to avoid >> being parsed as a token 
> (shifting, namely). That is the only thing that got fixed in C++0x, not 
> nesting templates which is part of the language since C++99.

This surprises me.  Given all the difficult parsing needed to make sense of 
C++, it seems like this small bit of lexical analysis should never have been 
a sticking point. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26180

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 16:35:32 +0100, Thomas Richter wrote:

> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> On 02/05/2011 10:38 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> In message<4d4d8322$0$41117$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Silvio wrote:
>>>
>>>> And Lew is correct: templates and genercis are completely different
>>>> beasts.
>>>
>>> “Completely” as in “having nothing in common”? Or is this some usage
>>> of “completely” that I wasn’t aware of?
>>>
>>> Please explain.
>> 
>> Templates in C++ are basically advanced macros--each invocation of a
>> template type regenerates the class, so a Foo<int> and a Foo<double>
>> are two completely different things.
> 
> That's much more than a macro could do. Templates are a language of its
> own, include syntax checks, etc. Quite unlike macros, they do not
> substitute text patterns. Templates allow meta-programming, i.e. you can
> use the compiler to generate code. And, of course, templates are quite
> complex - very unlike the simple-minded preprocessor.

I take it by "macros" you mean the simple-minded preprocessor macros of C 
and C++. Lisp has things it calls "macros" that are much more 
sophisticated, including syntax checks, etc., and are able to do 
everything C++ templates can do and then some. Common Lisp macros can 
generate templated CLOS classes, for instance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25940

On 02/06/2011 06:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<iil9uk$b6m$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> It's not the same syntax. List<String>  is the type of a specific
>> instance, while the class still remains List.
>
> List<String>  is a class, not an instance. In something like
>
>      List<String>  L;
>
> it is L that is the instance.

L is an instance of a class. List<String> is an instance of a type, a 
type that is distinct from List (the raw type or the class type).

If you're having this much problems understanding me, I'm sure you'll be 
having lots of fun when it comes to capture conversion. Just because two 
variables have type List<? extends Number> doesn't mean that they have 
the same type. ;-)

> See, how can you try to tell me what the difference is between Java and C++,
> when you don’t understand it yourself?

I do very much understand it myself. My problem is that you have such a 
broken understanding of Java that the terminology I normally use to 
explain stuff is lost on you. Java is not C++, so don't come in with 
your preconceived notions of C++ and argue that they should apply to Java.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web