.@dibblego "Types raise the level of complexity we can tolerate." --https://twitter.com/jessitron/status/540205529847832577 …
Why do we never see any of the less-trivial abstractions implemented in dynamically-typed programming languages?
-
-
-
@chris__martin While clearly true, the spectacular apologetics in response are often jaw-dropping. - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@pmonks Well, the list is long -- I will get to it, but what amazing shit (abstraction?) have you seen in clojure?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@pmonks How about anything-but-introductory-category-theory. I never see anything like that. I wonder why.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@pmonks I think they exemplify the limits to which I refer. Sorry, but that is not amazing in the context of abstraction.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@pmonks Er yeah. Thanks for helping out with that. Just to be clear, I refer to say, category theory, for examples of bastraction. -
New conversation -
-
-
@pmonks those libraries, while very impressive, aren't abstractions. They are libraries applying existing abstractions.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@pmonks I wasn't addressing triviality or making any suggestion of it there.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@dibblego it's pretty difficult to keep all the types in your head when trying to implement something like monadic parsers (for instance) -
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.