News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why We Chose Typescript. Parent comment

Re:Why We Chose Typescript by resf on Saturday July 01, 2017 @08:46AM (#14676877)
Specifically structural record types, and many statically typed languages don't have them. (not Java, not C++, not Haskell, not Rust, yes Swift, yes OCaml)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why We Chose Typescript by jstimpfle on Saturday July 01, 2017 @09:24AM (#14677007)
What I wanted to point out is that typically a C struct is what you need. The common case is static keys and static value types but dynamic values.

What are interesting use cases for more dynamic (i.e. non-fixed set of keys / types)?

I mean, if you need something super-abstract and flexible, you are unlikely to need a built-in convenient syntax to hardcode such values.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why We Chose Typescript by mrkgnao on Saturday July 01, 2017 @01:43PM (#14678047)
, yes Purescript :)

For those new to this, good search terms are "row polymorphism", "extensible records", and "polymorphic variants".

[ Parent | on HN ]