4 ms·
Sorry if the post sounds like I am trying to argue that one approach is inherently better than the other. It is not my goal. Rather, I want to show the amount o
by matklad 7y ago
Sorry if the post sounds like I am trying to argue that one approach is inherently better than the other. It is not my goal. Rather, I want to show the amount of language level machinery (extensive static checks, or runtime nullability) that is required if the language has constructors.
- adrianmonk 7y agoOK, that's very reasonable. I think you make some good points that constructors can be problematic. Maybe they need to be reinvented or something. Just ditching them entirely as Rust does seems like an honest attempt at moving things forward, though I don't really see it as the long term solution because neither approach is all that great when you consider all the weaknesses that have been pointed out with both.