For the cost of "ugly" code (C++ templates can go much uglier), you get
compile-time errors instead of runtime errors for some parts of your
code, most notably in the Collections interface. Unless you are doing
awkward tricks or pushing the edges of generics, generics might save you
 some significant debugging time...

Crouchez wrote On 09/05/07 15:15,:

   Aesthetics aside, your attempt to stay away from
generics has already failed: The Collection framework
has been generified, and the warning message you've
received means your code hasn't kept pace.  As I see
it, you have various possible recourses:

   - Revert to a pre-1.5 Java environment.  This will
     become untenable when 1.4 reaches end-of-life,
     which (IIRC) will be before the USA elects its
     next President.

   - Add annotations (another 1.5 feature; see the
     Tutorial) to suppress the warnings.  This will
     require extra caution on your part, because a
     ClassCastException will make you look reckless
     instead of just unfortunate.

   - Get rid of -Xlint and ignore the warnings that
     still remain.  See above.

   - Adopt generics in your own code, at least to
     the extent of catering to them in other classes
     that are already generified.  Who knows?  You
     might grow accustomed to them, even if they
     never arouse your adoration.

  The choice isn't mine to make.

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:15:34 GMT, "Crouchez"
<blah@bllllllahblllbllahblahblahhh.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly
quoted someone who said :

Agreed, the generics syntax is barf-inducing, particularly when you
get into < > nests, however, for a simple HashMap<String,Integer> it
is invaluable documentation and will flush out all kinds of bugs. It
also gets rid of explicit casts.  This is a good thing. You should
only specify the type in one place. Java generics have it down to two.