10 Reasons We Need Java 3.0
Subject:   Primitive types are needed!
Date:   2002-08-02 10:12:15
From:   petilon
For efficiency we still need primitive types. The article mentions C#, but the much-vaunted "Type System Unification" in C# is broken. See
Other poor ideas in C# include structs and properties. See critiques section on this site:
Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.

  • Primitive types are needed, but need not prohibit first-class types
    2002-08-06 05:27:23  David Collier-Brown | O'Reilly AuthorO'Reilly Blogger [View]

    Actually smalltalk used a simple mechanism
    to make operations fast: they started out
    running the "primitive" code (ie, machine
    code), but if it could not handle one of
    the cases, faulted into a more general
    interpreted code-block.

    This made the common case fast, without blowing
    up the general case.

    Java, in principle, could have first-class
    types with full generality, without sacrificing
    performance if the "int" primitive code
    was the first code run for all integer
    operations, and had a few hooks to the full
    class, to be used whenever the primitive code
    didn't suffice.