My personal opinion: Rust would likely benefit from adding private trait methods and data members to traits, but the features aren't really high priority, which is evidenced by the fact that the relevant RFCs haven't gotten a lot of traction.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Because it's like: 80% of the time, an enum is fine instead of an inheritance hierarchy. 80% of the remainder, a trait and generic functions are fine. 80% of the remainder, trait objects are fine.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Object-oriented programming is the worst paradigm except for all the others.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Blessed if your language doesn't have them, and you add an Objective-<language> wrapper on top
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why damned if you don't? My favorite languages don't have either, and I don't miss them at all.
-
There was a recent twitter thread where someone coming to rust from a more traditional OO imperative background missed them quite a lot.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
i am OO, i dream in OO, i think in OO, i program with OO.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
records and function pointers have been in use since at least the 70s
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You are better if they don't have it in my opinion
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.