4 ms·
I agree. I suspect the author is coming from a purely-oop background, where making a subclass/trait is a very costly and clumsy way to reuse logic. In a functi
by alexandercrohde 8y ago
I agree. I suspect the author is coming from a purely-oop background, where making a subclass/trait is a very costly and clumsy way to reuse logic.
In a functional paradigm, even the most trivial of abstraction pays off handsomely. This is exactly what "map" is for example.
- spion 8y agoTrivial doesn't mean it wasn't well thought out. On the contrary the more trivial the abstraction the more likely its more general, since it has less constraints.