3 ms·
Having had to use a bunch of different spatial packages, each defining their own `Position` type, I would love it if there were a standard type in the standard
by rurounijones 6y ago
Having had to use a bunch of different spatial packages, each defining their own `Position` type, I would love it if there were a standard type in the standard library or a very simple minimal "type only" package that they could all depend on.
I could just pass between instead of having to covert constantly between the packages individual representations.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoThis connects to something I call "code bureaucracy" - in my experience working on legacy code, upwards of 50% of programming is being spent on shuffling data from one place to another, converting its type several times along the way, because different parts of the system - both internal and third party - each define their own version of same or similar types. I wish in particular we could reduce the number of equivalent types across libraries, but I feel the solution will have to involve tagging types with WikiData identifiers or equivalent. So "Color" becomes defined as type Q1075, or perhaps Q1075<Q166194> to show you mean an RGB-denoted color...
- saeranv 6y ago100% agree, having different point representations is a pain. I also don't like it when they're represented as objects (which is almost always the case). It seems so much more powerful, and expressive to me to just keep it as a tuple, so that you can work with matrices of points.