Reply to thread

Message

I reckon if you know C++ you can learn Java (not including libs) in a few weeks. Java Generics is (was?) awful.
I did Java in the 90s. Didn't like it .. that's just me. Not intellectually stimulating. It is useful for web apps but it won't teach a discipline of programming.

Java started life as applets

[URL unfurl="true"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_applet[/URL]

Java generics are implemented through type erasure, i.e. type arguments are only used for compilation and linking, but erased for execution. That is, there is no 1:1 correspondence between compile time types and runtime types.

Java is not worse/better than C++. Their strengths are othogonal.

[QUOTE="Daniel Duffy, post: 301796, member: 607"] I reckon if you know C++ you can learn Java (not including libs) in a few weeks. Java Generics is (was?) awful. I did Java in the 90s. Didn't like it .. that's just me. Not intellectually stimulating. It is useful for web apps but it won't teach a [B]discipline of programming.[/B] Java started life as applets [URL unfurl="true"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_applet[/URL] Java generics are [B]implemented through type erasure, i.e. type arguments are only used for compilation and linking, but erased for execution[/B]. That is, there is no 1:1 correspondence between compile time types and runtime types. Java is not worse/better than C++. Their strengths are othogonal. [/QUOTE]

Verification