Re: Generics - What is the difference here ?
On Sep 18, 7:25 pm, Lew <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
On Sep 18, 9:49 am, softwarepearls_com <i...@softwarepearls.com>
wrote:
While I'll leave the language spec explanation to others, I'd just
like to say that you can have full generics type safety using the less
verbose syntax:
List<String> list = newArrayList(); // note: no space
The "newArrayList()" method is defined in a utility class, as follows:
/
***********************************************************************=
**********
* Shorthand factory for instantiating a new {@link ArrayList=
}.
*
* @param <E>
* @return a ArrayList.
***********************************************************************=
**********/
public static <E> ArrayList<E> newArrayList() {
return new ArrayList<E>();
}
.. if you combine this utility method with Java's static imports, plus
(in my case Eclipse) your IDE's "favorite static imports"
functionality, then you can basically say goodbye to typing in the
type parameter twice in most situations.
BTW, this neat trick apparently comes from Joshua Bloch himself.
Much as I like Mr. Bloch's advice usually, I detest this one. Adding
an entire method and a variant syntax for object allocation just to
avoid the repetition of the type parameter seems nothing short of
silly to me. I see absolutely nothing wrong with
List <Foo> list = new ArrayList <Foo> ();
in the first place. It documents the type-safety of the allocation in
a way that the sidestep idiom does not. Without the development of a
separate class with separate methods and separate test cases just to
cover something that works perfectly fine in the language as is.
--
Lew
I agree with you in cases where you just have one type parameter whose
name is short(ish). But with Map declarations, where you have two
types arguments to specify, or where the one (or more) type
argument(s) are long, Bloch's style becomes a readability aid. And I'm
not even going to start on nested type declarations.. there the
approach becomes very attractive.