4 ms·

Why does genetics make things that’s for read?

• zdragnar 6y ago
  Functions can be given semantic names (I.e. have meaning); block statements cannot. If writing a function that can take an array or slice of any type of data requires providing a generic argument (I.e. so you can specify that the function returns a slice of the same type of data as it was given), then you can name it "reverse" if it reverses the array, write it only once, and every timr you use it, you read "reverse" and know what it does. For loops dont have those names, and so have to be rewritten every time you use them. As such, every time you see a for loop, you have to read and parse every statement to see what it is doing, and if it has any unexpected side effects or bugs introduced via copy-paste or what not.
  • therealdrag0 6y ago
    Sorry I meant to say “why do genetics make things harder to read?”. Tbh I can’t tell if you’re responding to that or not
    • zdragnar 6y ago
      I did misread your post, but I will also say that generics are a double edged sword when it comes to readability. Needing to declare genetic types in function signatures can add irrelevant detail and heavy syntax. For example, look at the interpreter interface in this typescript file: https://github.com/gcanti/io-ts/blob/master/src/Schema.ts#L29 https://github.com/gcanti/io-ts/blob/master/src/Schema.ts#L2... Granted, genetics don't need to be done that way, but it is among the more common and popular approaches. The type information is tangled up in the implementation, making focusing on either more challenging. Perhaps we need modes for syntax highlighting- one for types, one for implementation?