3 ms·

This is less LSP and more the co/contravariance of container types, which is its own special hell.

by joshuamorton 7y ago

LessDmesg 7y ago
The hell stems from inheritance, which is just syntactic sugar over composition. And a very unhealthy kind of sugar as that: problems with co- and contravariance, problems with copying, the need for redundant type declarations. And inheritance doesn't guarantee autofulfillment of the Liskov principle, either. One might even wonder why inheritance is needed at all in a language. Go and Rust are certainly fine without it.
- hinkley 7y ago
  One of the humblest smart guys I worked with years ago would try to convince me over lunch that the Next Big Language would have syntactic sugar to make composition as easy as inheritance. I think in part because I had intimated that I was trying to create a language (narrator: he didn't. It went nowhere) There are a couple languages that have added something like this in the interim, but nobody seems to have made it an idiomatic thing. Which is a shame, because I still think I might like to work in the world he dreamed up. You get a little more composition in languages like NodeJS for the very pragmatic reason that inheritance, at least historically, was not seamless and hence had a high degree of friction.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Ah, just like VB did with COM....
hinkley 7y ago
With the possible exception of a couple of convenience methods, you can model collections (independently) as a source and sink for elements and avoid having to rely on variance at all. But we treat them as a storehouse of shared state... which ought to be our first warning that things are about to go sideways. Lots of people get confused by variance. They shouldn’t, but insisting in what people should or shouldn’t do rather than working with how they are is a sure route to frustration.

3 ms·

This is less LSP and more the co/contravariance of container types, which is its own special hell.

by joshuamorton 7y ago

This is less LSP and more the co/contravariance of container types, which is its own special hell.

LessDmesg 7y ago
The hell stems from inheritance, which is just syntactic sugar over composition. And a very unhealthy kind of sugar as that: problems with co- and contravariance, problems with copying, the need for redundant type declarations. And inheritance doesn't guarantee autofulfillment of the Liskov principle, either. One might even wonder why inheritance is needed at all in a language. Go and Rust are certainly fine without it.
- hinkley 7y ago
  One of the humblest smart guys I worked with years ago would try to convince me over lunch that the Next Big Language would have syntactic sugar to make composition as easy as inheritance. I think in part because I had intimated that I was trying to create a language (narrator: he didn't. It went nowhere) There are a couple languages that have added something like this in the interim, but nobody seems to have made it an idiomatic thing. Which is a shame, because I still think I might like to work in the world he dreamed up. You get a little more composition in languages like NodeJS for the very pragmatic reason that inheritance, at least historically, was not seamless and hence had a high degree of friction.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Ah, just like VB did with COM....
hinkley 7y ago
With the possible exception of a couple of convenience methods, you can model collections (independently) as a source and sink for elements and avoid having to rely on variance at all. But we treat them as a storehouse of shared state... which ought to be our first warning that things are about to go sideways. Lots of people get confused by variance. They shouldn’t, but insisting in what people should or shouldn’t do rather than working with how they are is a sure route to frustration.