3 ms·
Eh I don't see the need for it. Explicit is the way to do. The biggest mistake they've made in recent memory was adding default implementations of interfaces.
by issafram 2y ago
Eh I don't see the need for it. Explicit is the way to do. The biggest mistake they've made in recent memory was adding default implementations of interfaces. Makes no sense.
- ed_elliott_asc 2y agoIt would be useful in testing, mocking (faking) sealed classes etc
- masklinn 2y agoYou can do that with explicit implementations just fine e.g. haskell type classes (and their less competent sibling rust traits). It is, if anything, better: you can abstract over multiple third party types, and you’re not stuck with the interface they defined, so if you need to switch in the future you can.