Yeah. The change is that now only ambiguities that actually matter come up, not hypothetical possibilities.
-
-
Replying to @johnmyleswhite
makes sense. To me, the whack-a-mole is the biggest issue with generic functions
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hadleywickham
Yeah, I'm increasingly uninterested in making most functions generic.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @johnmyleswhite @hadleywickham
Interesting; isn't that the opposite of what's generally recommended, especially in functional programming?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @klmr @johnmyleswhite
no, I don’t think so. There’s not much advice though b/c generic functions have never been popular
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hadleywickham @johnmyleswhite
Well fundamentally it seems to go against problem decomposition, which naturally yields generic solutions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In functional programming at least (but also in OOP) this kind of generics has been tremendously popular.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @klmr @hadleywickham
Generic functions with multiple dispatch have not been popular.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
it's confusing here because in FP "generic functions" usually means a single, type-parametric impl
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
It turns out generic is a pretty generic term. :)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
the FP style would be: many type-parametrized functions, a few core generic fns (e.g. +) they all use
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.