If so, what is the difference between the two? Are there actually two separate class definitions in the java library? One for the old ArrayList and one for the new generic one? This is purely a question from curiosity.
Share
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
If so, what is the difference between the two? Are there actually two separate class definitions in the java library? One for the old ArrayList and one for the new generic one? This is purely a question from curiosity.
There is just one class
ArrayList, but it supports generics, which means that you can annotate it with a type. However, that is optional (mostly for backwards compatibility), so you can also continue to use the raw type (but that is discouraged).Note that Java generics only happen for the compiler, at runtime the ArrayList instance itself has no idea what generic type you assigned to it. This means that it works exactly the same way internally if you annotate it or not.
Unlike arrays, there are no new separate classes for generic collections. So while there is actually a different class for
Integer[]than forString[](or forInteger[][]), the class forArrayList<String>is the same as forArrayList<Integer>(andArrayList<?>andArrayListandArrayList<List<Integer>>).And also unlike arrays, there is nothing special in generics for use by collections (although that remains their most popular application). The same mechanism can be used for completely different things, for example a Callable.