4 ms·
I can't help but think that, when past teams programmed mostly in assembly, a "Function" could be explained as a pattern. Having such "design patterns" seem li
by haolez 3y ago
I can't help but think that, when past teams programmed mostly in assembly, a "Function" could be explained as a pattern.
Having such "design patterns" seem like a side effect of our current tools' limitations. Maybe new technologies like Wing[0] (no affiliation) will help pushing us to the next generation of tools.
[0] https://www.winglang.io/ https://www.winglang.io/
- bobbiechen 3y agoAbsolutely. Take something like the Builder pattern in Java for handling large numbers of possibly-optional arguments - in Python rarely-if-ever used due to named keyword arguments.
- devbent 3y ago> I can't help but think that, when past teams programmed mostly in assembly, a "Function" could be explained as a pattern. Actually it was an entire new paradigm. Procedural programming!
- eladbenisrael 3y ago(elad, winglang maintainer here) i like this observation - it's not uncommon for patterns to turn into language primitives when they end up becoming a very common thing in your language. this is reflected both in wing as a language but also in the fact that wing's preflight phase in a sense is a programming model for turning infrastructure patterns into composable components.