2009/9/22 David R White <[log in to unmask]>

> Sounds like a potential application for Java generics?  Generics would also
> help reduce the number of times casting is required and improve the
> readability of code.
Ah, generics, is what I was refering to, but I used the word "template"
instead. Sorry, c++ habit.
Considering that ECJ is used by a lot of people, the code needs to be
understood by a great number of people. That would make improved code
readability a very good thing IMO.

> Downsides are the amount of work, and possible efficiency concerns.  I'm no
> expert on the latter.
I don't believe there are "efficiency concerns", but I'm absolutely no java
expert. (And Sean commented on this while I was typing)

> David
> Sean Luke wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 2009, at 7:01 PM, Claes Gyllenswärd wrote:
>>  If I recall correctly, floats were chosen because the speed penalty one
>>> gets when using doubles?
>> Memory mostly, but also the speed penalty involved in generating random
>> double values using Mersenne Twister.  It's almost inconsequential nowadays.
I was under the impression that you were talking about converting _only_ the
fitness values from float to double. Does that necessitate a rewrite of the

>> Sean

>Unfortunately, Java's generics are *grotesquely* inefficient, making them
entirely inappropriate for an EC system.  It's one reason why ECJ uses them
nowhere.  :-(
They are? I was under the impression that generics was no more or and no
less than syntactic suger. Providing more compiler errors, fewer runtime
(I assume everyone considers that a great thing) but all in all the same
This page:
"The net effect of using generics, especially in large programs, is improved
readability and robustness.".
while it doesn't say "while retaining your performance", my interpretation
of it is that it will..