I'm new to C# and have just started to delve into using classes that essentially mirror a database. What I'm confused about is how I'm able to use lines like
var queryLondonCustomers = from cust in customers
where cust.City == "London"
select cust;
in my program. From what I understand, that syntax isn't "normal" C#, so the above line wouldn't have any meaning if I hadn't included System.Linq. What is happening is we've added to the C# sharp language in the context of this file.
Maybe I'm completely wrong. Could someone clear this up for me? I come from a C++ background, so maybe I'd understand if someone could show me the C++ equivalent of this concept.
And if I'm right, why is this way of doing things preferable to having a C# class that talks to the database by using strings that are database queries, like with PHP and MySQL? I thought this MVC way of talking to the database was supposed to provide an abstraction for me to use a C# class for database operations, but really this is just taking database language and adding it to the C# language in the context of a particular C# file. I can't see any point of that. I'm not trolling, just trying to understand the spirit of this whole ASP.NET MVC thing that is the most confusing thing I've learned so far.
From what I understand, that syntax isn't "normal" C#
Yes it is, as of C# 3.
so the above line wouldn't have any meaning if I hadn't included System.Linq
Yes it would. It would still have effectively been transformed by the compiler into:
var queryLondonCustomers = customers.Where(cust => cust.City == "London");
(The lack of a Select call is because you're selecting the range variable directly, rather than some projection of it.)
If that code would have compiled (e.g. because of a Where member in customers, or due to another extension method on its type) then so would the query expression.
Query expressions are specified in section 7.16 of the C# language specification.
As for the question of why you'd want to do this, well:
Using an ORM instead of just manual SQL is hardly new - but LINQ integrates it into the language, with a somewhat leaky abstraction
LINQ doesn't just work for databases; I primarily use it in "regular" collections such as lists etc.
in my program. From what I understand, that syntax isn't "normal" C#, so the above line wouldn't have any meaning if I hadn't included System.Linq
Yes and no at the same time :-)
The LINQ syntax is standard C# syntax (from C# 3), but it is resolved at compile time as a semi-textual substitution...
Your code is changed to:
var queryLondonCustomers = customers.Where(cust => cust.City == "London");
and then the various .Where and .Select methods are resolved (it is called Duck Typing... see for example Does LINQ "Query Syntax" Support Duck Typing?)
So at this point you need the using System.Linq that gives you access to the System.Linq.Enumerable and System.Linq.Queryable that are the two classes that implement all the various .Where and .Select methods as extension methods.
Note that you could create and implement a static class of yours, public static class MyLinqMethods, and by creating methods with the "right" signature in that class, you could use the LINQ syntax against your MyLinqMethods class.
And if I'm right, why is this way of doing things preferable to having a C# class that talks to the database by using strings that are database queries
There is some safety in using LINQ... If you created somewhere some classes that mapped the database tables, then the C# compiler could check against these classes that you are using the right names for the fields. If you wrote
var queryLondonCustomers = from cust in customers
where cust.CityERROR == "London"
select cust;
the compiler would give you an error, because CityERROR isn't a field/property of Customer. Clearly you could have an error in the "mapping" files, but at least you have a single place that can have these errors.
From what I understand, that syntax isn't "normal" C#,
Yes it is.
so the above line wouldn't have any meaning if I hadn't included System.Linq
It would. It would always mean the same thing as:
var queryLondonCustomers = customers.Where(cust.City == "London");
C# doesn't care how customers.Where(Func<Customer, bool>) is defined, just as long as it is. System.Linq has extension methods that define Where for IEnumerable and IQueryable which covers 99.9% of the time that you want this, but it doesn't have to come from there.
In particular if customers was an instance of a class that had its own Where(Func<Customer, bool>) method then it would be the overload used (instance methods always beat extension methods in overload resolution). Likewise if another static class defined an extension method for ... Where(this CustomerCollection, Func<Customer, bool>) or similar it would be called.
And if I'm right, why is this way of doing things preferable to having a C# class that talks to the database by using strings that are database queries
Querying collection-like objects is a very common use case, of which database access is only one. Providing a common interface to a common use case is a classic reason for any interface-based programming.
ASP.NET MVC is just a way of creating web applications, like you would create windows forms or WPF projects to create desktop applications. They don't have any special capabilities regarding database interaction .
LINQ on the other hand is something that is quite unique. It provides a convenient way of working with collections. The data in these collections can come from databases but it doesn't have to. How you write your queries depend on your preference. I like the lambda syntax, it is short and easy to read.
The advantage of LINQ is that you CAN use its syntax to interact with the database, but therefore you'll need to use APIs that are designed to do this, such as entity framework. This way, you can tell entity framework to do certain stuff with your LINQ commands, such as retrieving records with a certain where clause.
In C++ I would get the address of the function and overwrite the first few bytes to a jmp to my function, do some stuff, restore the original bytes, and call the original function.
Can I do something like this in C#?
The .NET Profiler API is the closest "Microsoft-approved" way of intercepting methods at runtime. As already mentioned, this is somewhat difficult to implement and I am not aware of a library that makes this easy to implement using purely managed code.
While researching options for this myself a few months ago, I stumbled on CLR Method Injection, which is an article with source code explaining how to intercept methods at runtime. I considered using this myself, and even had the sample project working, but ultimately concluded that I needed more than method interception and would need a different solution. However, this approach directly answers your question.
Lastly, what I ended up doing was developing Afterthought as an open source alternative to PostSharp, which runs as a post-compile step and allows you to modify existing methods to call other code, or replace the method implementations altogether. I am working right now on a new fluid syntax, which I will include a sample of now to provide an example to help you see how this AOP approach would meet your needs:
Methods
.Named("Sum")
.WithParams<int[]>()
.Before((T instance, ref int[] values)
=> { var s = new Stopwatch(); s.Start(); return s; })
.After((instance, stopwatch, values)
=> instance.Result = (int)stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
In this case while amending an existing type with a Sum method I am introducing code before and after the method to measure the execution time. After running Afterthought against the original compiled class, the resulting Sum method would have calls to these lambda expressions (the C# compiler just turns them into static methods) before and after the method body. I could have just as easily called Implement and replaced the entire method implementation.
I hope one of these approaches meets your needs. In my case, I went the AOP route because I wanted to do more than interception, such as implementing interfaces, adding new methods/properties, etc. I also wanted something that would not introduce dependencies at runtime or concerns about stability or performance in the runtime environment--compile-time processing is just safer and easier to test.
Do you want to hook at runtime or do you want to patch the binary?
To hook at runtime you can use the profiling api(relatively difficult):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc188743.aspx
To hook at compiletime you can use an IL rewriter, such as PostSharp.
The technique you're looking for is called AOP - Aspect Oriented Programming. You can find several frameworks for C# if you goggle a little.
Update: You can find plenty of links and info in this question: Built-in AOP in C# - is it on the way?
I know generics are in C# to fulfill a role similar to C++ templates but I really need a way to generate some code at compile time - in this particular situation it would be very easy to solve the problem with C++ templates.
Does anyone know of any alternatives? Perhaps a VS plug-in that preprocesses the code or something like that? It doesn't need to be very sophisticated, I just need to generate some methods at compile time.
Here's a very simplified example in C++ (note that this method would be called inside a tight loop with various conditions instead of just "Advanced" and those conditions would change only once per frame - using if's would be too slow and writing all the alternative methods by hand would be impossible to maintain). Also note that performance is very important and that's why I need this to be generated at compile time.
template <bool Advanced>
int TraceRay( Ray r )
{
do
{
if ( WalkAndTestCollision( r ) )
{
if ( Advanced )
return AdvancedShade( collision );
else
return SimpleShade( collision );
}
}
while ( InsideScene( r ) );
}
You can use T4.
EDIT: In your example, you can use a simple bool parameter.
Not really, as far as I know. You can do this type of thing at runtime, of course; a few meta-programming options, none of them trivial:
reflection (the simplest option if you don't need "fastest possible")
CSharpCodeProvider and some code-generation
the same with CodeDom
ILGenerator if you want hardcore
Generics does work as templates, if that the case.
There is a way to create code in runtime -
Check is CodeProject Example:
CodeProject
In addition to Marc's excellent suggestions, you may want to have a look at PostSharp.
I've done some Meta-Programming - style tricks using static generics that use reflection (and now I'm using dynamic code generation using System.Linq.Expressions; as well having used ILGenerator for some more insane stuff). http://www.lordzoltan.org/blog/post/Pseudo-Template-Meta-Programming-in-C-Sharp-Part-2.aspx for an example I put together (sorry about the lack of code formatting - it's a very old post!) that might be of use.
I've also used T4 (link goes to a series of tutorials by my favourite authority on T4 - Oleg Sych), as suggested by SLaks - which is a really nice way to generate code, especially if you're also comfortable with Asp.Net-style syntax. If you generate partial classes using the T4 output, then the developer can then embellish and add to the class however they see fit.
If it absolutely has to be compile-time - then I'd go for T4 (or write your own custom tool, but that's a bit heavy). If not, then a static generic could help, probably in partnership with the kind of solutions mentioned by Marc.
If you want true code generation, you could use CodeSmith http://www.codesmithtools.com which isn't free/included like T4, but has some more features, and can function as a VS.NET plug-in.
Here's an older article that uses genetic programming to generate and compile code on the fly:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163934.aspx
"The Generator class is the kernel of the genetic programming application. It discovers available base class terminals and functions. It generates, compiles, and executes C# code to search for a good solution to the problem it is given. The constructor is passed a System.Type which is the root class for .NET reflection operations."
Might be overkill for your situation, but does show what C# can do. (Note this article is from the 1.0 days)
Having mostly worked with C#, I tend to think in terms of C# features which aren't available in Java. After working extensively with Java over the last year, I've started to discover Java features that I wish were in C#. Below is a list of the ones that I'm aware of. Can anyone think of other Java language features which a person with a C# background may not realize exists?
The articles http://www.25hoursaday.com/CsharpVsJava.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Java_and_C_Sharp give a very extensive list of differences between Java and C#, but I wonder whether I missed anything in the (very) long articles. I can also think of one feature (covariant return type) which I didn't see mentioned in either article.
Please limit answers to language or core library features which can't be effectively implemented by your own custom code or third party libraries.
Covariant return type - a method can be overridden by a method which returns a more specific type. Useful when implementing an interface or extending a class and you want an overriding method to return a type more specific to your class. This can be simulated using explicit interface implementation in C#, but there's no simple equivalent when overriding class methods.
Enums are classes - an enum is a full class in java, rather than a wrapper around a primitive like in .Net. Java allows you to define fields and methods on an enum.
Anonymous inner classes - define an anonymous class which implements a method. Although most of the use cases for this in Java are covered by delegates in .Net, there are some cases in which you really need to pass multiple callbacks as a group. It would be nice to have the choice of using an anonymous inner class.
Checked exceptions - I can see how this is useful in the context of common designs used with Java applications, but my experience with .Net has put me in a habit of using exceptions only for unrecoverable conditions. I.E. exceptions indicate a bug in the application and are only caught for the purpose of logging. I haven't quite come around to the idea of using exceptions for normal program flow.
strictfp - Ensures strict floating point arithmetic. I'm not sure what kind of applications would find this useful.
fields in interfaces - It's possible to declare fields in interfaces. I've never used this.
static imports - Allows one to use the static methods of a class without qualifying it with the class name. I just realized today that this feature exists. It sounds like a nice convenience.
Java has packages that reflect a hierarchy and filesystem layout, while in C# the assemblies are irrespective of the namespace hierarchy.
Octal literals! :D
int x = 0245; System.out.println(x);
165 is outputted. Fun :)
Java's generics allow type wildcards. For example, <T extends Object & Comparable<? super T>> T Collections.max(Collection<? extends T>) { ... } is not expressable in C#.
In C#, you cannot have a return statement in a finally block.
I don't know if you want this in your language, but I guess Type Erasure can be seen as a feature to some.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 9 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I mostly use Java and generics are relatively new. I keep reading that Java made the wrong decision or that .NET has better implementations etc. etc.
So, what are the main differences between C++, C#, Java in generics? Pros/cons of each?
I'll add my voice to the noise and take a stab at making things clear:
C# Generics allow you to declare something like this.
List<Person> foo = new List<Person>();
and then the compiler will prevent you from putting things that aren't Person into the list.
Behind the scenes the C# compiler is just putting List<Person> into the .NET dll file, but at runtime the JIT compiler goes and builds a new set of code, as if you had written a special list class just for containing people - something like ListOfPerson.
The benefit of this is that it makes it really fast. There's no casting or any other stuff, and because the dll contains the information that this is a List of Person, other code that looks at it later on using reflection can tell that it contains Person objects (so you get intellisense and so on).
The downside of this is that old C# 1.0 and 1.1 code (before they added generics) doesn't understand these new List<something>, so you have to manually convert things back to plain old List to interoperate with them. This is not that big of a problem, because C# 2.0 binary code is not backwards compatible. The only time this will ever happen is if you're upgrading some old C# 1.0/1.1 code to C# 2.0
Java Generics allow you to declare something like this.
ArrayList<Person> foo = new ArrayList<Person>();
On the surface it looks the same, and it sort-of is. The compiler will also prevent you from putting things that aren't Person into the list.
The difference is what happens behind the scenes. Unlike C#, Java does not go and build a special ListOfPerson - it just uses the plain old ArrayList which has always been in Java. When you get things out of the array, the usual Person p = (Person)foo.get(1); casting-dance still has to be done. The compiler is saving you the key-presses, but the speed hit/casting is still incurred just like it always was.
When people mention "Type Erasure" this is what they're talking about. The compiler inserts the casts for you, and then 'erases' the fact that it's meant to be a list of Person not just Object
The benefit of this approach is that old code which doesn't understand generics doesn't have to care. It's still dealing with the same old ArrayList as it always has. This is more important in the java world because they wanted to support compiling code using Java 5 with generics, and having it run on old 1.4 or previous JVM's, which microsoft deliberately decided not to bother with.
The downside is the speed hit I mentioned previously, and also because there is no ListOfPerson pseudo-class or anything like that going into the .class files, code that looks at it later on (with reflection, or if you pull it out of another collection where it's been converted into Object or so on) can't tell in any way that it's meant to be a list containing only Person and not just any other array list.
C++ Templates allow you to declare something like this
std::list<Person>* foo = new std::list<Person>();
It looks like C# and Java generics, and it will do what you think it should do, but behind the scenes different things are happening.
It has the most in common with C# generics in that it builds special pseudo-classes rather than just throwing the type information away like java does, but it's a whole different kettle of fish.
Both C# and Java produce output which is designed for virtual machines. If you write some code which has a Person class in it, in both cases some information about a Person class will go into the .dll or .class file, and the JVM/CLR will do stuff with this.
C++ produces raw x86 binary code. Everything is not an object, and there's no underlying virtual machine which needs to know about a Person class. There's no boxing or unboxing, and functions don't have to belong to classes, or indeed anything.
Because of this, the C++ compiler places no restrictions on what you can do with templates - basically any code you could write manually, you can get templates to write for you.
The most obvious example is adding things:
In C# and Java, the generics system needs to know what methods are available for a class, and it needs to pass this down to the virtual machine. The only way to tell it this is by either hard-coding the actual class in, or using interfaces. For example:
string addNames<T>( T first, T second ) { return first.Name() + second.Name(); }
That code won't compile in C# or Java, because it doesn't know that the type T actually provides a method called Name(). You have to tell it - in C# like this:
interface IHasName{ string Name(); };
string addNames<T>( T first, T second ) where T : IHasName { .... }
And then you have to make sure the things you pass to addNames implement the IHasName interface and so on. The java syntax is different (<T extends IHasName>), but it suffers from the same problems.
The 'classic' case for this problem is trying to write a function which does this
string addNames<T>( T first, T second ) { return first + second; }
You can't actually write this code because there are no ways to declare an interface with the + method in it. You fail.
C++ suffers from none of these problems. The compiler doesn't care about passing types down to any VM's - if both your objects have a .Name() function, it will compile. If they don't, it won't. Simple.
So, there you have it :-)
C++ rarely uses the “generics” terminology. Instead, the word “templates” is used and is more accurate. Templates describes one technique to achieve a generic design.
C++ templates is very different from what both C# and Java implement for two main reasons. The first reason is that C++ templates don't only allow compile-time type arguments but also compile-time const-value arguments: templates can be given as integers or even function signatures. This means that you can do some quite funky stuff at compile time, e.g. calculations:
template <unsigned int N>
struct product {
static unsigned int const VALUE = N * product<N - 1>::VALUE;
};
template <>
struct product<1> {
static unsigned int const VALUE = 1;
};
// Usage:
unsigned int const p5 = product<5>::VALUE;
This code also uses the other distinguished feature of C++ templates, namely template specialization. The code defines one class template, product that has one value argument. It also defines a specialization for that template that is used whenever the argument evaluates to 1. This allows me to define a recursion over template definitions. I believe that this was first discovered by Andrei Alexandrescu.
Template specialization is important for C++ because it allows for structural differences in data structures. Templates as a whole is a means of unifying an interface across types. However, although this is desirable, all types cannot be treated equally inside the implementation. C++ templates takes this into account. This is very much the same difference that OOP makes between interface and implementation with the overriding of virtual methods.
C++ templates are essential for its algorithmic programming paradigm. For example, almost all algorithms for containers are defined as functions that accept the container type as a template type and treat them uniformly. Actually, that's not quite right: C++ doesn't work on containers but rather on ranges that are defined by two iterators, pointing to the beginning and behind the end of the container. Thus, the whole content is circumscribed by the iterators: begin <= elements < end.
Using iterators instead of containers is useful because it allows to operate on parts of a container instead of on the whole.
Another distinguishing feature of C++ is the possibility of partial specialization for class templates. This is somewhat related to pattern matching on arguments in Haskell and other functional languages. For example, let's consider a class that stores elements:
template <typename T>
class Store { … }; // (1)
This works for any element type. But let's say that we can store pointers more effciently than other types by applying some special trick. We can do this by partially specializing for all pointer types:
template <typename T>
class Store<T*> { … }; // (2)
Now, whenever we instance a container template for one type, the appropriate definition is used:
Store<int> x; // Uses (1)
Store<int*> y; // Uses (2)
Store<string**> z; // Uses (2), with T = string*.
Anders Hejlsberg himself described the differences here "Generics in C#, Java, and C++".
There are already a lot of good answers on what the differences are, so let me give a slightly different perspective and add the why.
As was already explained, the main difference is type erasure, i.e. the fact that the Java compiler erases the generic types and they don't end up in the generated bytecode. However, the question is: why would anyone do that? It doesn't make sense! Or does it?
Well, what's the alternative? If you don't implement generics in the language, where do you implement them? And the answer is: in the Virtual Machine. Which breaks backwards compatibility.
Type erasure, on the other hand, allows you to mix generic clients with non-generic libraries. In other words: code that was compiled on Java 5 can still be deployed to Java 1.4.
Microsoft, however, decided to break backwards compatibility for generics. That's why .NET Generics are "better" than Java Generics.
Of course, Sun aren't idiots or cowards. The reason why they "chickened out", was that Java was significantly older and more widespread than .NET when they introduced generics. (They were introduced roughly at the same time in both worlds.) Breaking backwards compatibility would have been a huge pain.
Put yet another way: in Java, Generics are a part of the Language (which means they apply only to Java, not to other languages), in .NET they are part of the Virtual Machine (which means they apply to all languages, not just C# and Visual Basic.NET).
Compare this with .NET features like LINQ, lambda expressions, local variable type inference, anonymous types and expression trees: these are all language features. That's why there are subtle differences between VB.NET and C#: if those features were part of the VM, they would be the same in all languages. But the CLR hasn't changed: it's still the same in .NET 3.5 SP1 as it was in .NET 2.0. You can compile a C# program that uses LINQ with the .NET 3.5 compiler and still run it on .NET 2.0, provided that you don't use any .NET 3.5 libraries. That would not work with generics and .NET 1.1, but it would work with Java and Java 1.4.
Follow-up to my previous posting.
Templates are one of the main reasons why C++ fails so abysmally at intellisense, regardless of the IDE used. Because of template specialization, the IDE can never be really sure if a given member exists or not. Consider:
template <typename T>
struct X {
void foo() { }
};
template <>
struct X<int> { };
typedef int my_int_type;
X<my_int_type> a;
a.|
Now, the cursor is at the indicated position and it's damn hard for the IDE to say at that point if, and what, members a has. For other languages the parsing would be straightforward but for C++, quite a bit of evaluation is needed beforehand.
It gets worse. What if my_int_type were defined inside a class template as well? Now its type would depend on another type argument. And here, even compilers fail.
template <typename T>
struct Y {
typedef T my_type;
};
X<Y<int>::my_type> b;
After a bit of thinking, a programmer would conclude that this code is the same as the above: Y<int>::my_type resolves to int, therefore b should be the same type as a, right?
Wrong. At the point where the compiler tries to resolve this statement, it doesn't actually know Y<int>::my_type yet! Therefore, it doesn't know that this is a type. It could be something else, e.g. a member function or a field. This might give rise to ambiguities (though not in the present case), therefore the compiler fails. We have to tell it explicitly that we refer to a type name:
X<typename Y<int>::my_type> b;
Now, the code compiles. To see how ambiguities arise from this situation, consider the following code:
Y<int>::my_type(123);
This code statement is perfectly valid and tells C++ to execute the function call to Y<int>::my_type. However, if my_type is not a function but rather a type, this statement would still be valid and perform a special cast (the function-style cast) which is often a constructor invocation. The compiler can't tell which we mean so we have to disambiguate here.
Both Java and C# introduced generics after their first language release. However, there are differences in how the core libraries changed when generics was introduced. C#'s generics are not just compiler magic and so it was not possible to generify existing library classes without breaking backwards compatibility.
For example, in Java the existing Collections Framework was completely genericised. Java does not have both a generic and legacy non-generic version of the collections classes. In some ways this is much cleaner - if you need to use a collection in C# there is really very little reason to go with the non-generic version, but those legacy classes remain in place, cluttering up the landscape.
Another notable difference is the Enum classes in Java and C#. Java's Enum has this somewhat tortuous looking definition:
// java.lang.Enum Definition in Java
public abstract class Enum<E extends Enum<E>> implements Comparable<E>, Serializable {
(see Angelika Langer's very clear explanation of exactly why this is so. Essentially, this means Java can give type safe access from a string to its Enum value:
// Parsing String to Enum in Java
Colour colour = Colour.valueOf("RED");
Compare this to C#'s version:
// Parsing String to Enum in C#
Colour colour = (Colour)Enum.Parse(typeof(Colour), "RED");
As Enum already existed in C# before generics was introduced to the language, the definition could not change without breaking existing code. So, like collections, it remains in the core libraries in this legacy state.
11 months late, but I think this question is ready for some Java Wildcard stuff.
This is a syntactical feature of Java. Suppose you have a method:
public <T> void Foo(Collection<T> thing)
And suppose you don't need to refer to the type T in the method body. You're declaring a name T and then only using it once, so why should you have to think of a name for it? Instead, you can write:
public void Foo(Collection<?> thing)
The question-mark asks the the compiler to pretend that you declared a normal named type parameter that only needs to appear once in that spot.
There's nothing you can do with wildcards that you can't also do with a named type parameter (which is how these things are always done in C++ and C#).
Wikipedia has great write-ups comparing both Java/C# generics and Java generics/C++ templates. The main article on Generics seems a bit cluttered but it does have some good info in it.
The biggest complaint is type erasure. In that, generics are not enforced at runtime. Here's a link to some Sun docs on the subject.
Generics are implemented by type
erasure: generic type information is
present only at compile time, after
which it is erased by the compiler.
C++ templates are actually much more powerful than their C# and Java counterparts as they are evaluated at compile time and support specialization. This allows for Template Meta-Programming and makes the C++ compiler equivalent to a Turing machine (i.e. during the compilation process you can compute anything that is computable with a Turing machine).
In Java, generics are compiler level only, so you get:
a = new ArrayList<String>()
a.getClass() => ArrayList
Note that the type of 'a' is an array list, not a list of strings. So the type of a list of bananas would equal() a list of monkeys.
So to speak.
Looks like, among other very interesting proposals, there is one about refining generics and breaking backwards compatibility:
Currently, generics are implemented
using erasure, which means that the
generic type information is not
available at runtime, which makes some
kind of code hard to write. Generics
were implemented this way to support
backwards compatibility with older
non-generic code. Reified generics
would make the generic type
information available at runtime,
which would break legacy non-generic
code. However, Neal Gafter has
proposed making types reifiable only
if specified, so as to not break
backward compatibility.
at Alex Miller's article about Java 7 Proposals
NB: I don't have enough point to comment, so feel free to move this as a comment to appropriate answer.
Contrary to popular believe, which I never understand where it came from, .net implemented true generics without breaking backward compatibility, and they spent explicit effort for that.
You don't have to change your non-generic .net 1.0 code into generics just to be used in .net 2.0. Both the generic and non-generic lists are still available in .Net framework 2.0 even until 4.0, exactly for nothing else but backward compatibility reason. Therefore old codes that still used non-generic ArrayList will still work, and use the same ArrayList class as before.
Backward code compatibility is always maintained since 1.0 till now... So even in .net 4.0, you still have to option to use any non-generics class from 1.0 BCL if you choose to do so.
So I don't think java has to break backward compatibility to support true generics.