3 ms·
I don't understand this attitude. I do use other languages, and I can tell you type polymorphism is not a mistake. Complicated architectures full of abstraction
by mattnewton 10y ago
I don't understand this attitude. I do use other languages, and I can tell you type polymorphism is not a mistake. Complicated architectures full of abstraction are a mistake, which you can limit without sacrificing the ability for me to make a type-safe generic function.
- stcredzero 10y agoI can tell you type polymorphism is not a mistake. It's a particular trade-off. Some opine that it's not the right trade off. You disagree. Complicated architectures full of abstraction are a mistake, which you can limit without sacrificing the ability for me to make a type-safe generic function. From what I've seen, the other mechanisms for limiting over-exuberant abstraction don't work well enough over the long term, at scale.
- pcwalton 10y ago> From what I've seen, the other mechanisms for limiting over-exuberant abstraction don't work well enough over the long term, at scale. Can you name a specific example of people using ML-style generics (i.e. no typeclasses, no module system) to achieve "over-exuberant abstraction"?
- stcredzero 10y agoNope. You got me there. I'm not so sure that would be cheap to implement in Golang, though. Also, your comment prompted me to find and read this: http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~jacobm/pubs/templates.html http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~jacobm/pubs/templates.html