Some programmers sure do seem to obsess over syntax but it turns out that the meaningful stuff is mostly in the semantics.
Show this thread
-
For one recent example, Ruby now has new syntax for pattern matching case statements... but Ruby doesn't have algebraic data types so it has to do some very ad hoc things to make pattern matching work, like defining a "deconstruction" interface for classes.
Show this thread
This is how it works in Scala FWIW, and it seems to work pretty well there (if you're willing to ignore the perf cost of constructing an array/tuple every call, which for Ruby is NBD).https://docs.scala-lang.org/tour/extractor-objects.html …
-
-
I mean, there are some pretty significant differences between Scala and Ruby that might explain why this may work better in one language than the other. For example, Scala can tell you if your thing implements the destructuring interface at compile time.
-
100% agree that there are many things that work really well in typed languages that lose most of their value if you apply them to a language like Ruby (Option/Maybe and Result/Either are some similar cases that come to mind)
- 2 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.