I don't really see the point of this article. The claim that Generics
made it harder for the guy to see his design flaw is, IMHO,
ludicrous. I think the fact that he used "Set<Map.Entry<String,
Object>>" as a return type is a clear signal that something was wrong,
so in this case Generics definitely help with maintenance. His
suggests that this would have been easier to spot without generics,
but I don't believe him -- without generics, the return type would
have been simply "Set", which looks far more legitimate
I'm a fan of self-documenting code, and generics are a strong step in
that direction (along with sensible variable and method names).
Sameer
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:32:33 +0100, Sean Radford
<sra...@ae...> wrote:
> You may want to have a think about this:
>
> http://www.javaspecialists.co.za/archive/Issue095b.html
>
> (though probably good to have a quick look at
>
> http://www.javaspecialists.co.za/archive/Issue095.html
>
> first)
>
> --
> Dr. Sean Radford, MBBS, MSc
> sra...@ae...
> http://www.aegeus-technology.com/
>
>
--
Sameer Ajmani
http://ajmani.net
|
