Smalltalk, Go, Erlang, ...https://twitter.com/pcwalton/status/857677705738727424 …
-
-
Replying to @coreload
Strongtalk had sum types (well, union types). :) Erlang almost has them with its pattern matching.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
For the record: When I say "sum" I specifically mean type w/ exhaustive membership of disjoint cases, mutually exclusive between types.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
By contrast, I rather default to open membership, offer matching constructs that support overlap, and permit reusing ctors across types.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think the claim that we should all switch to OCaml polymorphic variants is pretty different than not wanting sum types.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I'm trying to counter claim that sum types = universal improvement. Go gets pretty far with second class products & memory-safe down-casting
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrandonBloom @samth and
I'm a believer that less is generally more, even if it means choosing looser fitting primitives to avoid abundance of form-fitted ones.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrandonBloom @samth and
Reasonable people can disagree, but it's shortsighted to imply Go's designers were either ignorant or stupid, & Rust is somehow enlightened
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
They weren’t stupid. They just made a design mistake. That’s OK. I made design mistakes with Rust too.
-
-
My list of design complaints about Go is long. It just doesn't include lack of sum types.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'll think about everyone's complaints about Go while my Go code compiles. Oh, done. Time's up.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 16 more 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.