3 ms·

Not really, you're just operating on a higher dimension. It's like saying multiplication makes things hard to understand... You could write things 15 x 3 or 1

by fleitz 11y ago

Not really, you're just operating on a higher dimension. It's like saying multiplication makes things hard to understand... You could write things 15 x 3 or 15 + 15 + 15, I dislike having programmers who like to do the latter on my team, or languages that make you do things like: Integer(15).multiply(Integer(3)) I'm sure that using reflection or higher order programming does cut out some people that you probably don't want anyway.

sscarduzio 11y ago
It's a higher dimension of RUNTIME fuck ups. Leveraging the type system for COMPILE TIME dynamic programming is not only safer, but more runtime-efficient. Wanna be clever? Here you go, be type-safely clever: https://vimeo.com/channels/flatmap2015/128466887 https://vimeo.com/channels/flatmap2015/128466887 http://www.haskellforall.com/2012/06/you-could-have-invented-free-monads.html http://www.haskellforall.com/2012/06/you-could-have-invented... With a good type system, you won't need reflection. If it compiles, it will work. And give me a break on the "cut out the dumb people" part, I heard it many times from people right before they shoot themselves on a foot. Repeatedly. As engineers, it's our job to solve problem and reduce complexity. Fail at either of the two, you have been a shit engineer.