Difference between specifying generic vs not in Java Collection constructor [duplicate]
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
-2
This question already has an answer here:
What is the point of the diamond operator in Java 7?
7 answers
Is there any difference in runtime or performance between
ArrayList<Integer> list = new ArrayList<Integer>();
and
ArrayList<Integer> list = new ArrayList();
They both seem to compile and have similar behavior
java generics type-erasure
asked Nov 16 '18 at 19:16
user129137user129137
223
marked as duplicate by arshajii java
Users with the java badge can single-handedly close java questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 16 '18 at 19:17
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
-2
This question already has an answer here:
What is the point of the diamond operator in Java 7?
7 answers
Is there any difference in runtime or performance between
ArrayList<Integer> list = new ArrayList<Integer>();
and
ArrayList<Integer> list = new ArrayList();
They both seem to compile and have similar behavior
java generics type-erasure
asked Nov 16 '18 at 19:16
user129137user129137
223
marked as duplicate by arshajii java
Users with the java badge can single-handedly close java questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 16 '18 at 19:17
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
5
Except perhaps that the second one would earn you a compiler warning
– ernest_k
Nov 16 '18 at 19:17
Please note that in any case, generics have no runtime signification - it's pure compile time stuff. What could happen is that by not specifying the types, you're bypassing the type safety checks that generics provide, and could end up with a list that doesn't contain only Integers
– Sébastien Tromp
Nov 16 '18 at 19:47
add a comment |
-2
-2
-2
This question already has an answer here:
What is the point of the diamond operator in Java 7?
7 answers
Is there any difference in runtime or performance between
ArrayList<Integer> list = new ArrayList<Integer>();
and
ArrayList<Integer> list = new ArrayList();
They both seem to compile and have similar behavior
java generics type-erasure
asked Nov 16 '18 at 19:16
user129137user129137
223
This question already has an answer here:
What is the point of the diamond operator in Java 7?
7 answers
Is there any difference in runtime or performance between
ArrayList<Integer> list = new ArrayList<Integer>();
and
ArrayList<Integer> list = new ArrayList();
They both seem to compile and have similar behavior
This question already has an answer here:
What is the point of the diamond operator in Java 7?
7 answers
java generics type-erasure
java generics type-erasure
asked Nov 16 '18 at 19:16
user129137user129137
223
asked Nov 16 '18 at 19:16
user129137user129137
223
asked Nov 16 '18 at 19:16
user129137user129137
223
asked Nov 16 '18 at 19:16
user129137user129137
223
asked Nov 16 '18 at 19:16
user129137user129137
223
223
marked as duplicate by arshajii java
Users with the java badge can single-handedly close java questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 16 '18 at 19:17
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by arshajii java
Users with the java badge can single-handedly close java questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 16 '18 at 19:17
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
5
Except perhaps that the second one would earn you a compiler warning
– ernest_k
Nov 16 '18 at 19:17
Please note that in any case, generics have no runtime signification - it's pure compile time stuff. What could happen is that by not specifying the types, you're bypassing the type safety checks that generics provide, and could end up with a list that doesn't contain only Integers
– Sébastien Tromp
Nov 16 '18 at 19:47
add a comment |
5
Except perhaps that the second one would earn you a compiler warning
– ernest_k
Nov 16 '18 at 19:17
Please note that in any case, generics have no runtime signification - it's pure compile time stuff. What could happen is that by not specifying the types, you're bypassing the type safety checks that generics provide, and could end up with a list that doesn't contain only Integers
– Sébastien Tromp
Nov 16 '18 at 19:47
5
5
Except perhaps that the second one would earn you a compiler warning
– ernest_k
Nov 16 '18 at 19:17
Except perhaps that the second one would earn you a compiler warning
– ernest_k
Nov 16 '18 at 19:17
Please note that in any case, generics have no runtime signification - it's pure compile time stuff. What could happen is that by not specifying the types, you're bypassing the type safety checks that generics provide, and could end up with a list that doesn't contain only Integers
– Sébastien Tromp
Nov 16 '18 at 19:47
Please note that in any case, generics have no runtime signification - it's pure compile time stuff. What could happen is that by not specifying the types, you're bypassing the type safety checks that generics provide, and could end up with a list that doesn't contain only Integers
– Sébastien Tromp
Nov 16 '18 at 19:47
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
-1
No, there is absolutely no difference in runtime performance.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:19
ygorygor
1,1521616
Except he needs empty diamonds in #2
– achAmháin
Nov 16 '18 at 19:29
I know that when you include the empty diamond Java does type inference so it results in the same thing as the first example. When I specificially leave out the diamond, The line still compiles and I was curious about that
– user129137
Nov 16 '18 at 19:34
Why the downvote? The question was about runtime and performance. The answer is exactly about that.
– ygor
Nov 17 '18 at 9:00
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
-1
No, there is absolutely no difference in runtime performance.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:19
ygorygor
1,1521616
Except he needs empty diamonds in #2
– achAmháin
Nov 16 '18 at 19:29
I know that when you include the empty diamond Java does type inference so it results in the same thing as the first example. When I specificially leave out the diamond, The line still compiles and I was curious about that
– user129137
Nov 16 '18 at 19:34
Why the downvote? The question was about runtime and performance. The answer is exactly about that.
– ygor
Nov 17 '18 at 9:00
add a comment |
-1
No, there is absolutely no difference in runtime performance.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:19
ygorygor
1,1521616
Except he needs empty diamonds in #2
– achAmháin
Nov 16 '18 at 19:29
I know that when you include the empty diamond Java does type inference so it results in the same thing as the first example. When I specificially leave out the diamond, The line still compiles and I was curious about that
– user129137
Nov 16 '18 at 19:34
Why the downvote? The question was about runtime and performance. The answer is exactly about that.
– ygor
Nov 17 '18 at 9:00
add a comment |
-1
-1
-1
No, there is absolutely no difference in runtime performance.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:19
ygorygor
1,1521616
No, there is absolutely no difference in runtime performance.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:19
ygorygor
1,1521616
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:19
ygorygor
1,1521616
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:19
ygorygor
1,1521616
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:19
ygorygor
1,1521616
1,1521616
Except he needs empty diamonds in #2
– achAmháin
Nov 16 '18 at 19:29
I know that when you include the empty diamond Java does type inference so it results in the same thing as the first example. When I specificially leave out the diamond, The line still compiles and I was curious about that
– user129137
Nov 16 '18 at 19:34
Why the downvote? The question was about runtime and performance. The answer is exactly about that.
– ygor
Nov 17 '18 at 9:00
add a comment |
Except he needs empty diamonds in #2
– achAmháin
Nov 16 '18 at 19:29
I know that when you include the empty diamond Java does type inference so it results in the same thing as the first example. When I specificially leave out the diamond, The line still compiles and I was curious about that
– user129137
Nov 16 '18 at 19:34
Why the downvote? The question was about runtime and performance. The answer is exactly about that.
– ygor
Nov 17 '18 at 9:00
Except he needs empty diamonds in #2
– achAmháin
Nov 16 '18 at 19:29
Except he needs empty diamonds in #2
– achAmháin
Nov 16 '18 at 19:29
I know that when you include the empty diamond Java does type inference so it results in the same thing as the first example. When I specificially leave out the diamond, The line still compiles and I was curious about that
– user129137
Nov 16 '18 at 19:34
I know that when you include the empty diamond Java does type inference so it results in the same thing as the first example. When I specificially leave out the diamond, The line still compiles and I was curious about that
– user129137
Nov 16 '18 at 19:34
Why the downvote? The question was about runtime and performance. The answer is exactly about that.
– ygor
Nov 17 '18 at 9:00
Why the downvote? The question was about runtime and performance. The answer is exactly about that.
– ygor
Nov 17 '18 at 9:00
add a comment |
5
Except perhaps that the second one would earn you a compiler warning
– ernest_k
Nov 16 '18 at 19:17
Please note that in any case, generics have no runtime signification - it's pure compile time stuff. What could happen is that by not specifying the types, you're bypassing the type safety checks that generics provide, and could end up with a list that doesn't contain only Integers
– Sébastien Tromp
Nov 16 '18 at 19:47