_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
URI Isolating complexity is the essence of successful abstractions
PittleyDunkin wrote 16 min ago:
"Parameterizing complexity" is probably a better way to say it. There's
no isolation when it comes to software.
dartos wrote 1 hour 20 min ago:
I donât think I agree that either typescript nor rust successfully
hide the complexity in their type systems.
By the nature of type systems, they are tightly coupled with the code
written around them.
Rust has rich features to handle this coupling (traits and derives),
but typescript does not.
bb88 wrote 1 hour 31 min ago:
Python showed what relaxed types could do. And we could go a long way
as it turns out without types. But there are use cases for types, and
even python admitted such when they added type annotations.
However, when I was a kid a would put a firecracker next to an object.
I didn't bother running the scenario through a compiler to see if the
object was of type Explodable() and had an explode() method that would
be called.
saghm wrote 10 min ago:
> However, when I was a kid a would put a firecracker next to an
object. I didn't bother running the scenario through a compiler to
see if the object was of type Explodable() and had an explode()
method that would be called.
Duck typing: if it quacks like a duck, and it explodes objects next
to it, it's a firequacker
gsf_emergency wrote 3 hours 24 min ago:
>The question is first of all whether we have written them down
anywhere
The only hard thing in software: papers please (easily accessible
documentation)
picografix wrote 3 hours 28 min ago:
complexity has to live somewhere, code anxiety was a real thing for me
DIR <- back to front page