4 ms·
One thing I often tell people is that if a particular technology makes it easier to work with code that's 10 layers deep, it will also make it more likely that
by hbrn 4y ago
One thing I often tell people is that if a particular technology makes it easier to work with code that's 10 layers deep, it will also make it more likely that people will write code 10 layers deep where they would previously do 5 layers.
Somewhat similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- abalashov 4y agoYes! This is one reason I really like Go. I'm not exuberant about it the way some folks are, but amidst ambivalence about some aspects of it, this is one thing it really gets right. While it's hardly impossible, it's not that easy to write completely impenetrable code Go.
- IshKebab 4y agoNot in my experience. People will happily write 10 layers deep if you let them anyway. Technologies like Typescript make it easier for other people to untangle the mess. As an example, what parameters does `manim.animation.creation.Create()` accept?
- hbrn 4y agoSome people make things as deep as they can handle. If you reduce the pain from deep hierarchies, you will inevitably end up with deeper hierarchies. Also, doesn't your example prove my point? I'm saying focus on types leads to deeper hierarchies. Your example has types and a deep hierarchy.
- IshKebab 4y ago> Your example has types and a deep hierarchy. It was originally written without type hints. It looks like somebody has added them since I last used Manim (a couple of years ago) to make sense of the mess! In my extensive experience code with static types is always easier to follow than dynamically typed code. There's no contest.