It's one thing to conflate subtyping with inheritance. But an OO person has a very peculiar way of talking about polymorphism that seems to exclude parametric polymorphism. It's really weird.
Well, that mirrors FP yahoos who exclude ad hoc polymorphism as a form of polymorphism dual to parametric polymorphism (see the "expression problem"). Are we back to the 1990s "language wars" where each "side" tries to demonstrate how ignorant and idiotic it's proponents are?
-
-
This is an odd take. Ad-hoc polymorphism is central to Haskell, at least - who's claiming it isn't useful?
-
It's more like Haskellers taking it for granted, never ever prepending the word "polymorphism" with "ad hoc", always with "parametric" (often implicitly), and spitting on OO as if typeclasses were not directly descended from OO.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I don't see any eliding going on by FP types of ad hoc polymorphism, and my career spans a bit of both styles. Happy to see examples.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Read my blog!