Fair enough. Although my priorities somewhat differ from the norm, the document you criticized elsewhere does cite runtime overhead as a significant obstacle.
> the document you criticized elsewhere does cite runtime overhead as a significant obstacle.
And as I noted in my criticism it is completely wrong in doing so: the runtime overhead it notes is boxing in Java, ascribing it to generics.
But boxing is not a property of java's generics, it's a property of java's collections, java collections have required boxing value types since the first release (~1996), generics were only introduced in 2004. The boxing in java collections is orthogonal to generics.
In fact, one of the properties of C#'s reified generics is that it allows the compiler and runtime to avoid object (boxed) collections when it can use unboxed collections for value types.
True. The author is smart, and I would like to believe that he knew that reified unboxed collections would solve the space problem, but possibly be even worse than Java in time, since there is no JIT to inline repeated virtual calls to the same target. I can't guarantee that he did. ;p
