3 ms·
To be clear, I'm not saying it's not useful! No need to convince me of that. :) What I'm saying is that even useful features come with both benefits and drawba
by rtfeldman 10y ago
To be clear, I'm not saying it's not useful! No need to convince me of that. :)
What I'm saying is that even useful features come with both benefits and drawbacks. For example, I think user-defined typeclasses would add significant complexity to the language and especially to the library ecosystem.
I'm not saying "these are worthless ideas," I'm saying "these benefits wouldn't improve my life enough to justify the cost." :)
- leshow 10y agoYour claim was that Elm isn't boilerplate heavy, but without these types of abstractions, it is. Perhaps you can't see the benefit and you're happy writing 10 implementations of "show", but don't claim there is no boilerplate. For the record I don't care if it's typeclasses and I wouldn't want to see Elm turn into haskell. I'd just like some other type of mechanism for abstraction besides extracting to a function.
- rtfeldman 10y ago> Your claim was that Elm isn't boilerplate heavy, but without these types of abstractions, it is. You seem very certain of this, so surely finding some real-world code examples to back it up should not be too difficult, yeah? :) > Perhaps you can't see the benefit and you're happy writing 10 implementations of "show" Like I said, I do see the benefit, but don't think it's worth the drawbacks. Also, "deriving" saves you from writing "show" implementations, not typeclasses, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.