4 ms·

I have some experience with C++'s templates, but I'm more comfortable with Generics in C# which I believe are done correctly. I view the code I saw as closer to

by jamra 11y ago

I have some experience with C++'s templates, but I'm more comfortable with Generics in C# which I believe are done correctly. I view the code I saw as closer to C#'s approach to generics so I'm not sure your assumption is correct in my case. I just don't want the extra mental overhead of writing and reading generic parameters whereas I never had to do that with javascript. I really enjoyed the concept of having types for my javascript objects, but am getting frightened at the concept of decreased readability due to generics.

spion 11y ago
I honestly dont see the overhead. Its impossible to have any sort of typed functional programming without generics. Even the most basic of functions, map, has a type: declare function map<T,U>(a:Array<T>, f: (T) => U):Array<U> Just like functions are parameterised by their arguments, generics are types parameterised by (type) variables. They don't have to be any more complex than that. Whats the mental overhead there?
mreiland 11y ago
C# generics are not the same creature as C++ templates. It isn't a matter of done correctly or incorrectly, it's apples and oranges.
- jamra 11y ago
  Yes I know. I've done both. Typescript's syntax appears more like C#'s generics. My issue is that I would like types for when I get data from the server, but I don't really want to deal with casting window to "any". I personally went through the pains of learning javascript and have come out on the other side comfortable with its dynamic types. I really like the idea of compile time error checking, but I'm not sure I would stand for adding the complexity of generics. The change in my workflow is not very difficult. For example, when I'm using plain old javascript, I use documentation to find out how to use third party libraries and DOM manipulations. Though it works out for all of my needs, I wouldn't mind adding types. Adding types on top of that would reduce casting and spelling mistakes, but it's not like I can't open up the browser and test my code with a step through debugger. I would personally prefer opening the browser and maintaining readability in my code versus having type safety in my code and giving up readability.
  - spion 11y ago
    I almost forgot: generic type variables are used very little outside of generic libraries. We have a 20KLOC codebase which doesn't use type variables at all and has only a single in-house written dependency [1] that declares functions with type variables. note: This is about declaring generics, not using them. You'll still have to write Array<string> and Promise<MyType>, thats true. But its hardly any different from ArrayOfString or PromiseOfMyType in terms of readability. If I may be so bold, I'd really encourage you to give it a spin. You just might find that your fears about readability are exaggerated. [1]: https://github.com/doxout/promise-observer https://github.com/doxout/promise-observer
    - jamra 11y ago
      I didn't catch this at the time, but I will take a look. Thanks.

by jamra 11y ago

spion 11y ago

I honestly dont see the overhead. Its impossible to have any sort of typed functional programming without generics. Even the most basic of functions, map, has a type: declare function map<T,U>(a:Array<T>, f: (T) => U):Array<U> Just like functions are parameterised by their arguments, generics are types parameterised by (type) variables. They don't have to be any more complex than that. Whats the mental overhead there?

mreiland 11y ago

C# generics are not the same creature as C++ templates. It isn't a matter of done correctly or incorrectly, it's apples and oranges.

jamra 11y ago
Yes I know. I've done both. Typescript's syntax appears more like C#'s generics. My issue is that I would like types for when I get data from the server, but I don't really want to deal with casting window to "any". I personally went through the pains of learning javascript and have come out on the other side comfortable with its dynamic types. I really like the idea of compile time error checking, but I'm not sure I would stand for adding the complexity of generics. The change in my workflow is not very difficult. For example, when I'm using plain old javascript, I use documentation to find out how to use third party libraries and DOM manipulations. Though it works out for all of my needs, I wouldn't mind adding types. Adding types on top of that would reduce casting and spelling mistakes, but it's not like I can't open up the browser and test my code with a step through debugger. I would personally prefer opening the browser and maintaining readability in my code versus having type safety in my code and giving up readability.
- spion 11y ago
  I almost forgot: generic type variables are used very little outside of generic libraries. We have a 20KLOC codebase which doesn't use type variables at all and has only a single in-house written dependency [1] that declares functions with type variables. note: This is about declaring generics, not using them. You'll still have to write Array<string> and Promise<MyType>, thats true. But its hardly any different from ArrayOfString or PromiseOfMyType in terms of readability. If I may be so bold, I'd really encourage you to give it a spin. You just might find that your fears about readability are exaggerated. [1]: https://github.com/doxout/promise-observer https://github.com/doxout/promise-observer
  - jamra 11y ago
    I didn't catch this at the time, but I will take a look. Thanks.