3 ms·
> Look, I understand duck typing. Go doesn’t have it, the fact you keep calling go’s dynamic dispatch duck typing is a bit of a red flag No, more like static t
by mekoka 11mo ago
> Look, I understand duck typing. Go doesn’t have it, the fact you keep calling go’s dynamic dispatch duck typing is a bit of a red flag
No, more like static typed duck typing, or more accurately its close cousin structural typing.
But if you need to hear it from the horse's mouth https://research.swtch.com/interfaces https://research.swtch.com/interfaces
> You’re saying, essentially, that you just use the objects method and you don’t need to read its implementation to understand what it does
Your recent points have nothing to do with mine. What you're thinking that I'm saying is not what I'm saying. I'm still very much aligned with the original topic of the article, Interface Segregation as it's done in Go. An article to which you reacted adversely, while demonstrating that you're clearly still looking for Java where it doesn't exist. I'll leave things at that, since I'd just be repeating myself at this point.
- MarkMarine 11mo agoI’m not a Java dev, my preferred languages are Clojure, scala, rust, and python. I think you assumed ignorance, tried to explain something your colleagues probably don’t get to someone who understands it, and then haven’t put the effort into reading the link I sent earlier, and I’ve failed miserably at explaining my point. I think you’d have to have seen the problem, and maybe it only pops up in a large go monorepo that uses DI the IDE can’t see through, while simultaneously having to work with interfaces like “Get” where some of the implementation was written by devs who think Get is a mutation. You’re right though. We’re talking past each other and both think the other one is a moron. Leave it to the reader to figure out which one is I suppose.