【正文】 tion handling, and to allow greater flexibility in programming. 3 Collection libraries and support for easy collection use Because a container is a tool that you’ll use frequently, it makes sense to have a library of containers that are built in a reusable fashion, so you can take one off the shelf Because a container is a tool that you’ll use frequently, it makes sense to have a library of containers that are built in a reusable fashion, so you can take one off the shelf and plug it into your program. Java provides such a library, which should satisfy most needs. Downcasting vs. templates/generics To make these containers reusable, they hold the one universal type in Java that was previously mentioned: Object. The singly rooted hierarchy means that everything is an Object, so a container that holds Objects can hold anything. This makes containers easy to reuse. To use such a container, you simply add object references to it, and later ask for them back. But, since the container holds only Objects, when you add your object reference into the container it is upcast to Object, thus losing its identity. When you fetch it back, you get an Object reference, and not a reference to the type that you put in. So how do you turn it back into something that has the useful interface of the object that you put into the container? Here, the cast is used again, but this time you’re not casting up the inheritance hierarchy to a more general type, you cast down the hierarchy to a more specific type. This manner of casting is called downcasting. With upcasting, you know, for example, that a Circle is a type of Shape so it’s safe to upcast, but you don’t know that an Object is necessarily a Circle or a Shape so it’s hardly safe to downcast unless you know that’s what you’re dealing with. It’s not pletely dangerous, however, because if you downcast to the wrong thing you’ll get a runtime error called an exception, which will be described shortly. When you fetch object references from a container, though, you must have some way to remember exactly what they are so you can perform a proper downcast. Downcasting and the runtime checks require extra time for the running program, and extra effort from the programmer. Wouldn’t it make sense to somehow create the container so that it knows the types that it holds, eliminating the need for the downcast and a possible mistake? The solution is parameterized types, which are classes that the piler can automatically customize to work with particular types. For example, with a parameterized container, the piler could customize that container so that it would accept only Shapes and fetch only Shapes. Parameterized types are an important part of C++, partly because C++ has no singly rooted hierarchy. In C++, the keyword that implements parameterized types is “template.” Java currently has no parameterized types since it is possible for it to get by—however awkwardly—using the singly rooted hierarchy. However, a current proposal for parameterized types uses a syntax that is strikingly similar to C++ templates. 譯文 對象的創(chuàng)建和存在時間 從技術角度說， OOP（面向對象程序設計）只是涉及抽象的數(shù)據(jù)類型、繼承以及多形性，但另一些問題也可能顯得非常重要。t know until runtime how many objects you need, what their lifetime is, or what their exact type is. Those are determined at the spur of the moment while the program is running. If you need a new object, you simply make it on the heap at the point that you need it. Because the storage is managed dynamically, at runtime, the amount of time required to allocate storage on the heap is significantly longer than the time to create storage on the stack. (Creating storage on the stack is often a single assembly instruction to move the stack pointer down, and another to move it back up.) The dynamic approach makes the generally logical assumption that objects tend to be plicated, so the extra overhead of finding storage and releasing that storage will not have an important impact