Find centralized, trusted content and collaborate around the technologies you use most.
Learn more about CollectivesStack Internal
Knowledge at work
Bring the best of human thought and AI automation together at your work.
Explore Stack Internal.NET has reified generics; Java has erased generics.
The difference is this: if you have an List<String>ArrayList<String> object, in .NET, you can tell (at runtime) that the object has type List<String>ArrayList<String>, whereas in Java, at runtime, the object is of type ArrayList; the String part is lost. If you put in non-String objects into the ArrayList, the system can't enforce that, and you'll only know about it after you try to extract the item out, and the cast fails.
.NET has reified generics; Java has erased generics.
The difference is this: if you have an List<String> object, in .NET, you can tell (at runtime) that the object has type List<String>, whereas in Java, at runtime, the object is of type ArrayList; the String part is lost. If you put in non-String objects into the ArrayList, the system can't enforce that, and you'll only know about it after you try to extract the item out, and the cast fails.
.NET has reified generics; Java has erased generics.
The difference is this: if you have an ArrayList<String> object, in .NET, you can tell (at runtime) that the object has type ArrayList<String>, whereas in Java, at runtime, the object is of type ArrayList; the String part is lost. If you put in non-String objects into the ArrayList, the system can't enforce that, and you'll only know about it after you try to extract the item out, and the cast fails.
.NET has reified generics; Java has erased generics.
The difference is this: if you have an ArrayList<String>List<String> object, in .NET, you can tell (at runtime) that the object has type ArrayList<String>List<String>, whereas in Java, at runtime, the object is of type ArrayList; the String part is lost. If you put in non-String objects into the ArrayList, the system can't enforce that, and you'll only know about it after you try to extract the item out, and the cast fails.
.NET has reified generics; Java has erased generics.
The difference is this: if you have an ArrayList<String> object, in .NET, you can tell (at runtime) that the object has type ArrayList<String>, whereas in Java, at runtime, the object is of type ArrayList; the String part is lost. If you put in non-String objects into the ArrayList, the system can't enforce that, and you'll only know about it after you try to extract the item out, and the cast fails.
.NET has reified generics; Java has erased generics.
The difference is this: if you have an List<String> object, in .NET, you can tell (at runtime) that the object has type List<String>, whereas in Java, at runtime, the object is of type ArrayList; the String part is lost. If you put in non-String objects into the ArrayList, the system can't enforce that, and you'll only know about it after you try to extract the item out, and the cast fails.
.NET has reified generics; Java has erased generics.
The difference is this: if you have an ArrayList<String> object, in .NET, you can tell (at runtime) that the object has type ArrayList<String>, whereas in Java, at runtime, the object is of type ArrayList; the String part is lost. If you put in non-String objects into the ArrayList, the system can't enforce that, and you'll only know about it after you try to extract the item out, and the cast fails.
