I think everything after the first gripe is a fair point, but I don't get what the problem is with the first code chunks... it seems like the author is saying "

I think everything after the first gripe is a fair point, but I don't get what the problem is with the first code chunks... it seems like the author is saying "this is weird to me, and I don't like that," but I have no idea how else it'd work properly. For example, explicitly defining out function arguments is exactly what Scala does for function, check out this bad mofo, defining a function with 22 arguments (that I fell in love with years ago): https://www.scala-lang.org/api/current/scala/Function22.html https://www.scala-lang.org/api/current/scala/Function22.html Why'd I fall in love with it? Because it makes sense, that's how it should work right? I don't see how defining out 10 items explicitly; so, that each can have it's own type, is a problem. It's pretty damn nice they did it out to ten arguments, if you want more, extend the object... /shrug If you used a list instead, e.g. `T[A]` you'd take a hot-fat erasure-shit on the type information of each item in the list (or at least you would last time I used Swift extensively)... this way you keep that type information around. P.S. To be honest, explicitly defining things out like that can give you HUGE wins in languages like Swift because you give the compiler so much more information. It just doesn't usually pop onto most folks radar because it looks obtuse... with most modern code editors though it's easy enough to write in a couple minutes, if there's no macro system.