2 ms·
It's not that bad. Sure I'd call parts of it broken, but this isn't it: > any type might silently be another type which doesn't support any of the methods the
by mrkeen 6y ago
It's not that bad. Sure I'd call parts of it broken, but this isn't it:
> any type might silently be another type which doesn't support any of the methods the static type would indicate
When an object is typed differently from its actual runtime type, it's usually because it's hidden behind an interface type. So it indicates fewer methods than it supports. Safe, but unergonomic!