3 ms·
> I'm looking for a language with "objects" and a syntax like <this> But why? That's such a weird thing to look for. Clearly there's a reason they think they w
by tree_of_item 9y ago
> I'm looking for a language with "objects" and a syntax like <this>
But why? That's such a weird thing to look for. Clearly there's a reason they think they want "objects", but what is it? And why the focus on what syntax these objects have?
- zaphar 9y agoI'm not arguing this is a good thing. But I am saying that for the vast majority of programmers out there they use that pattern as a way of determining if they have those three attributes. It's cargo cult programming in a sense but it's also the only signal they've ever known.
- leshow 9y agoI think calling Rust that would confuse people more than anything. They will look for their traditional inheritance style relationships and be frustrated that there is not really any support for it. Better to teach the features that Rust actually has, than to try and fit some uber generic definition of "Objects" that's not going to serve newcommers.
- imtringued 9y agoCode organisation. Classes are basically used as datatype specific namespaces. In Haskell you have to deal with the possibility of record types sharing the same field names.