3 ms·
Apologies, you seem to think I'm throwing them both under a lot of the same bus. That was not my full intent, and I will gladly cede that academia pushed OO fa
by taeric 3y ago
Apologies, you seem to think I'm throwing them both under a lot of the same bus. That was not my full intent, and I will gladly cede that academia pushed OO far harder and to worse results than many functional things were pushed.
That said, I think you are giving "algebras of data types" a bit too much credit here. The vast majority of the coding that is done will not be made better by elaborate ways of coding things above and beyond a relational language. Having an algebra is a happy convenience when it works. But I have been bitten by far too many failed attempts at making them work to think it is "unlimited descriptive power."
- coldtea 3y agoYeah, talking more about algebra vs taxonomy in general, than about the data type algebraic facilities in various (functional or not) languages (which could be quite limited for non-algebraic reasons). I mean any transformations we do on the data still consistute an algebra, even if it's not encoded/enforced in the type system.