I was wrong, reflecting on the .NET design choices

Re:I was wrong, reflecting on the .NET design choices by broiledegg on Saturday April 22, 2017 @12:15PM (#14173179)

I think it's largely an urban myth.

All expressive languages whose type systems don't have a 1-to-1 equivalence in the runtime's type system need to employ some degree of erasure.

The distinction between "erasure" and "no erasure" doesn't make much sense. It's always just about more (CLR 1, JVM < 10) or less (CLR >= 2, JVM >= 10) erasure.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I was wrong, reflecting on the .NET design choices by emodendroket on Saturday April 22, 2017 @06:49PM (#14175313)

I don't see how you figure. In C# List<string> and List<int> are two different types at runtime.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I was wrong, reflecting on the .NET design choices by broiledegg on Saturday April 22, 2017 @07:02PM (#14175367)

And ...?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I was wrong, reflecting on the .NET design choices by emodendroket on Saturday April 22, 2017 @09:44PM (#14175970)

If you're implementing a CLR language and want flawless interop with everything then you just have the constraint that you need to support generics in the same way that other CLR languages do. I'm not seeing why this model is so much worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]