is Generics in Java the same as Templates in C++

I've never used C++, but I gather that the syntax is similar, but the main differences are i) GJ doesn't allow you to use primitive types, because they're not objects; ii) GJ only produces one chunk of code, rather than one per type of object used in the template.

Not quite sure what this means. There are implicit and explicit template generation. The code has to be generated somewhere, so the fact that it is generated can't be the cause for that comment. And since it only generated exactly what the programmer specified how would that be "bogus"?

The reason that implicit vs explicit generation is needed has to do with linking and not with C++. Linking is outside of the domain of C++ but it still has to be dealt with by the compiler in some fashion.
How so? Mine certainly were.
This has nothing to do with the idea itself. Templates in C++ are much more powerful than generics in Java. With power comes complexity. And that means bugs are more likely.

And I seriously doubt that the first version of generics in java will have zero bugs.

> I suspect more than making C++ people feel comfortable they faced the same problem that C++ language implementors did. One hopes that the syntax of the language is obvious and easily followed by the practitioners with out causing undo work on the compiler itself.

This is why languages seldom have operators that are more than two characters long. Programers don't like them, and it makes compilers much harder to write and thus slower.

And so when implementing a new feature one needs to choose a syntax that fits that. And for the contexts in use the selection of the angle brackets makes the most sense. It won't confuse the compiler (this is true even more in java than in C++) and it is 'obvious' to the developers what is going on when they see the syntax.

No. It is just different.
They allow primitives. They allow default template parameters. Template syntax actually runs during the compile (mini-interpreter) which allows for some interesting library and coding building schemes. The whole area of template functions (vs only class templates.) I am not sure but can java do method templates (different from both function and class templates?)
So templates in C++ are more powerful?

And if java did have as much power then we could expect the same number of bugs?

My argument is not that power causes bugs. But rather that you can't say that the initial complexity with the implementations meant that C++ templates are 'less' than java's. I wouldn't disagree that the complexity seemed extreme and that in itself is likely to lead to problems.

But so do multiple inheritance and operator overloading. And both of those had bugs in the early implementations. But it was the usage of the complexity and not the initial bugs that was at fault.
And my point is, is that if you took a black box approach with someone who did not know C++, then you be very likely to end up with exactly the same syntax.

So, by using C++ as a starting point, all it did was save time. It wasn't done to make the C++ people happy. (If decisions were made that way then operator overloading and multiple inheritance would be part of the language.)