2 ms·
"Using UnitilyLang we could replace the previous five code sections (3006 characters plus the hidden ConfigProvider and DynamoItemReader classes we get for free
by mcguire 7y ago
"Using UnitilyLang we could replace the previous five code sections (3006 characters plus the hidden ConfigProvider and DynamoItemReader classes we get for free in UnitilyLang) with (248 characters)."
Let me emphasize that, there: "classes we get for free".
"UnitilyLang is designed around abstraction, immutability and composition. It's language agnostic, that is until we have to write logic."
Well, language agnostic, but apparently not domain agnostic or framework agnostic.
Then, there's
workflow DynamoDbUserStore
= 4 . (3 (2 1))
Pointfree and nameless. Anyone have any idea what it does? Does the subsequent picture help? Anyone think you could modify what it does without a lot of unpacking? I'll leave it to someone else to figure out what's going on with the "UnitilyLang complete project".
Is Java verbose? Yes. Is it possible to be less verbose, especially if you invisibly provide domain knowledge "for free"? Yep. Is it possible to be too succinct?
- tom_mellior 7y ago> Pointfree and nameless. Anyone have any idea what it does? Does the subsequent picture help? Anyone think you could modify what it does without a lot of unpacking? I don't understand why this isn't the only (or at least the highest rated) comment in this discussion. There really is nothing more to say about this article. "4. (3 (2 1))" is not a program. "We apply the second dependency to the result of the first. We then Partially apply the 3rd dependency and compose the resulting function with the 4th dependency." is not an explanation -- what is the "3rd dependency"? Dropping names to somehow implicitly number something does save keystrokes, but it doesn't make for "good code" (the claim from the article's title).