The OCaml object system has had row polymorphism for decades, but screw that because y'know OO sucks and stuff.
Conversation
What most developers in industry call OO is not awesome. Is that ok to point out?
3
9
I've been thinking a lot about how to instill a longing for a better future without a disdain for the past and tradition. Might be relevant here.
2
2
Sure, I suspect we all have been thinking this. What have you found to be successful? How have you measured success?
1
Something I have found success with some audiences, especially at work, is framing it as "I'm not saying I wouldn't have made similar decisions N years ago when this was built, but now we have seen developments here and here..." usually applied to Nix vs traditional pkging & cfg.
2
7
I'm worried it might be a human problem. Similar to how oxytocin is responsible for in group affection and outgroup disgust
2
Yes, of course, it's a human problem. Most problems are.
1
2
Reminds me of this tweet twitter.com/yrashk/status/ - maybe we should be designing our programming langs, their ecosystems, and their communities with an eye for future obsolescence and/or reinvention?
Quote Tweet
If almost every software project becomes a shitty and expensive to replace legacy system, why not design them with the understanding that they WILL be replaced in a few years?
Let's stop pretending that it's going to be right this time around. Design for the inevitable rewrite.
1
2
Something I've been mulling over for a while now… given all the pains of trying to interface with existing C++ projects from Rust, what are the features/patterns that will make interfacing with existing Rust code a pain in the future?
Strongly enjoying this time of thought and will be mulling it over
1