[java] What's the reason I can't create generic array types in Java?

What's the reason why Java doesn't allow us to do

private T[] elements = new T[initialCapacity];

I could understand .NET didn't allow us to do that, as in .NET you have value types that at run-time can have different sizes, but in Java all kinds of T will be object references, thus having the same size (correct me if I'm wrong).

What is the reason?

Quote:

Arrays of generic types are not allowed because they're not sound. The problem is due to the interaction of Java arrays, which are not statically sound but are dynamically checked, with generics, which are statically sound and not dynamically checked. Here is how you could exploit the loophole:

class Box<T> {
    final T x;
    Box(T x) {
        this.x = x;
    }
}

class Loophole {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Box<String>[] bsa = new Box<String>[3];
        Object[] oa = bsa;
        oa[0] = new Box<Integer>(3); // error not caught by array store check
        String s = bsa[0].x; // BOOM!
    }
}

We had proposed to resolve this problem using statically safe arrays (aka Variance) bute that was rejected for Tiger.

-- gafter

(I believe it is Neal Gafter, but am not sure)

See it in context here: http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=457033&forumID=316

If we cannot instantiate generic arrays, why does the language have generic array types? What's the point of having a type without objects?

The only reason I can think of, is varargs - foo(T...). Otherwise they could have completely scrubbed generic array types. (Well, they didn't really have to use array for varargs, since varargs didn't exist before 1.5. That's probably another mistake.)

So it is a lie, you can instantiate generic arrays, through varargs!

Of course, the problems with generic arrays are still real, e.g.

static <T> T[] foo(T... args){
    return args;
}
static <T> T[] foo2(T a1, T a2){
    return foo(a1, a2);
}

public static void main(String[] args){
    String[] x2 = foo2("a", "b"); // heap pollution!
}

We can use this example to actually demonstrate the danger of generic array.

On the other hand, we've been using generic varargs for a decade, and the sky is not falling yet. So we can argue that the problems are being exaggerated; it is not a big deal. If explicit generic array creation is allowed, we'll have bugs here and there; but we've been used to the problems of erasure, and we can live with it.

And we can point to foo2 to refute the claim that the spec keeps us from the problems that they claim to keep us from. If Sun had more time and resources for 1.5, I believe they could have reached a more satisfying resolution.

From Oracle tutorial:

You cannot create arrays of parameterized types. For example, the following code does not compile:

List<Integer>[] arrayOfLists = new List<Integer>[2];  // compile-time error

The following code illustrates what happens when different types are inserted into an array:

Object[] strings = new String[2];
strings[0] = "hi";   // OK
strings[1] = 100;    // An ArrayStoreException is thrown.

If you try the same thing with a generic list, there would be a problem:

Object[] stringLists = new List<String>[];  // compiler error, but pretend it's allowed
stringLists[0] = new ArrayList<String>();   // OK
stringLists[1] = new ArrayList<Integer>();  // An ArrayStoreException should be thrown,
                                            // but the runtime can't detect it.

If arrays of parameterized lists were allowed, the previous code would fail to throw the desired ArrayStoreException.

To me, it sounds very weak. I think that anybody with a sufficient understanding of generics, would be perfectly fine, and even expect, that the ArrayStoredException is not thrown in such case.

The answer was already given but if you already have an Instance of T then you can do this:

T t; //Assuming you already have this object instantiated or given by parameter.
int length;
T[] ts = (T[]) Array.newInstance(t.getClass(), length);

Hope, I could Help, Ferdi265

I like the answer indirectly given by Gafter. However, I propose it is wrong. I changed Gafter's code a little. It compiles and it runs for a while then it bombs where Gafter predicted it would

class Box<T> {

    final T x;

    Box(T x) {
        this.x = x;
    }
}

class Loophole {

    public static <T> T[] array(final T... values) {
        return (values);
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {

        Box<String> a = new Box("Hello");
        Box<String> b = new Box("World");
        Box<String> c = new Box("!!!!!!!!!!!");
        Box<String>[] bsa = array(a, b, c);
        System.out.println("I created an array of generics.");

        Object[] oa = bsa;
        oa[0] = new Box<Integer>(3);
        System.out.println("error not caught by array store check");

        try {
            String s = bsa[0].x;
        } catch (ClassCastException cause) {
            System.out.println("BOOM!");
            cause.printStackTrace();
        }
    }
}

The output is

I created an array of generics.
error not caught by array store check
BOOM!
java.lang.ClassCastException: java.lang.Integer cannot be cast to java.lang.String
    at Loophole.main(Box.java:26)

So it appears to me you can create generic array types in java. Did I misunderstand the question?

If the class uses as a parameterized type, it can declare an array of type T[], but it cannot directly instantiate such an array. Instead, a common approach is to instantiate an array of type Object[], and then make a narrowing cast to type T[], as shown in the following:

  public class Portfolio<T> {
  T[] data;
 public Portfolio(int capacity) {
   data = new T[capacity];                 // illegal; compiler error
   data = (T[]) new Object[capacity];      // legal, but compiler warning
 }
 public T get(int index) { return data[index]; }
 public void set(int index, T element) { data[index] = element; }
}

Try this:

List<?>[] arrayOfLists = new List<?>[4];

It is because generics were added on to java after they made it, so its kinda clunky because the original makers of java thought that when making an array the type would be specified in the making of it. So that does not work with generics so you have to do E[] array=(E[]) new Object[15]; This compiles but it gives a warning.

By failing to provide a decent solution, you just end up with something worse IMHO.

The common work around is as follows.

T[] ts = new T[n];

is replaced with (assuming T extends Object and not another class)

T[] ts = (T[]) new Object[n];

I prefer the first example, however more academic types seem to prefer the second, or just prefer not to think about it.

Most of the examples of why you can't just use an Object[] equally apply to List or Collection (which are supported), so I see them as very poor arguments.

Note: this is one of the reasons the Collections library itself doesn't compile without warnings. If you this use-case cannot be supported without warnings, something is fundamentally broken with the generics model IMHO.

There surely must be a good way around it (maybe using reflection), because it seems to me that that's exactly what ArrayList.toArray(T[] a) does. I quote:

public <T> T[] toArray(T[] a)

Returns an array containing all of the elements in this list in the correct order; the runtime type of the returned array is that of the specified array. If the list fits in the specified array, it is returned therein. Otherwise, a new array is allocated with the runtime type of the specified array and the size of this list.

So one way around it would be to use this function i.e. create an ArrayList of the objects you want in the array, then use toArray(T[] a) to create the actual array. It wouldn't be speedy, but you didn't mention your requirements.

So does anyone know how toArray(T[] a) is implemented?

The main reason is due to the fact that arrays in Java are covariant.

There's a good overview here.

As others already mentioned, you can of course create via some tricks.

But it's not recommended.

Because the type erasure and more importantly the covariance in array which just allows a subtype array can be assigned to a supertype array, which forces you to use explicit type cast when trying to get the value back causing run-time ClassCastException which is one of the main objectives that generics try to eliminate: Stronger type checks at compile time.

Object[] stringArray = { "hi", "me" };
stringArray[1] = 1;
String aString = (String) stringArray[1]; // boom! the TypeCastException

A more direct example can found in Effective Java: Item 25.

covariance: an array of type S[] is a subtype of T[] if S is a subtype of T

Arrays Are Covariant

Arrays are said to be covariant which basically means that, given the subtyping rules of Java, an array of type T[] may contain elements of type T or any subtype of T. For instance

Number[] numbers = new Number[3];
numbers[0] = newInteger(10);
numbers[1] = newDouble(3.14);
numbers[2] = newByte(0);

But not only that, the subtyping rules of Java also state that an array S[] is a subtype of the array T[] if S is a subtype of T, therefore, something like this is also valid:

Integer[] myInts = {1,2,3,4};
Number[] myNumber = myInts;

Because according to the subtyping rules in Java, an array Integer[] is a subtype of an array Number[] because Integer is a subtype of Number.

But this subtyping rule can lead to an interesting question: what would happen if we try to do this?

myNumber[0] = 3.14; //attempt of heap pollution

This last line would compile just fine, but if we run this code, we would get an ArrayStoreException because we’re trying to put a double into an integer array. The fact that we are accessing the array through a Number reference is irrelevant here, what matters is that the array is an array of integers.

This means that we can fool the compiler, but we cannot fool the run-time type system. And this is so because arrays are what we call a reifiable type. This means that at run-time Java knows that this array was actually instantiated as an array of integers which simply happens to be accessed through a reference of type Number[].

So, as we can see, one thing is the actual type of the object, an another thing is the type of the reference that we use to access it, right?

The Problem with Java Generics

Now, the problem with generic types in Java is that the type information for type parameters is discarded by the compiler after the compilation of code is done; therefore this type information is not available at run time. This process is called type erasure. There are good reasons for implementing generics like this in Java, but that’s a long story, and it has to do with binary compatibility with pre-existing code.

The important point here is that since at run-time there is no type information, there is no way to ensure that we are not committing heap pollution.

Let’s consider now the following unsafe code:

List<Integer> myInts = newArrayList<Integer>();
myInts.add(1);
myInts.add(2);
List<Number> myNums = myInts; //compiler error
myNums.add(3.14); //heap polution

If the Java compiler does not stop us from doing this, the run-time type system cannot stop us either, because there is no way, at run time, to determine that this list was supposed to be a list of integers only. The Java run-time would let us put whatever we want into this list, when it should only contain integers, because when it was created, it was declared as a list of integers. That’s why the compiler rejects line number 4 because it is unsafe and if allowed could break the assumptions of the type system.

As such, the designers of Java made sure that we cannot fool the compiler. If we cannot fool the compiler (as we can do with arrays) then we cannot fool the run-time type system either.

As such, we say that generic types are non-reifiable, since at run time we cannot determine the true nature of the generic type.

I skipped some parts of this answers you can read full article here: https://dzone.com/articles/covariance-and-contravariance

I know I'm a little late to the party here, but I figured I might be able to help any future googlers since none of these answers fixed my issue. Ferdi265's answer helped immensely though.

I'm trying to create my own Linked list, so the following code is what worked for me:

package myList;
import java.lang.reflect.Array;

public class MyList<TYPE>  {

    private Node<TYPE> header = null;

    public void clear() {   header = null;  }

    public void add(TYPE t) {   header = new Node<TYPE>(t,header);    }

    public TYPE get(int position) {  return getNode(position).getObject();  }

    @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
    public TYPE[] toArray() {       
        TYPE[] result = (TYPE[])Array.newInstance(header.getObject().getClass(),size());        
        for(int i=0 ; i<size() ; i++)   result[i] = get(i); 
        return result;
    }


    public int size(){
         int i = 0;   
         Node<TYPE> current = header;
         while(current != null) {   
           current = current.getNext();
           i++;
        }
        return i;
    }  

In the toArray() method lies the way to create an array of a generic type for me:

TYPE[] result = (TYPE[])Array.newInstance(header.getObject().getClass(),size());    

In my case, I simply wanted an array of stacks, something like this:

Stack<SomeType>[] stacks = new Stack<SomeType>[2];

Since this was not possible, I used the following as a workaround:

1. Created a non-generic wrapper class around Stack (say MyStack)
2. MyStack[] stacks = new MyStack[2] worked perfectly well

Ugly, but Java is happy.

Note: as mentioned by BrainSlugs83 in the comment to the question, it is totally possible to have arrays of generics in .NET

The reason this is impossible is that Java implements its Generics purely on the compiler level, and there is only one class file generated for each class. This is called Type Erasure.

At runtime, the compiled class needs to handle all of its uses with the same bytecode. So, new T[capacity] would have absolutely no idea what type needs to be instantiated.