News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Inheritance Often Doesn't Make Sense. Parent comment

Re:Inheritance Often Doesn't Make Sense by jschwartzi on Saturday March 17, 2018 @08:26AM (#16606660)
Which is another way of saying that the domain model is what determines the properties of polygons that actually matter. You may have two classes, Square and Rectangle, and they may be mutually incompatible because you need to represent the shape of a hole and the shape of a plug. In that case your square isn't compatible with a rectangular shape even though it's a type of rectangle.

I think the author is saying that sometimes people are unclear about the domain model, and OO doesn't really give you any tools to reason about the model that you don't have in imperative languages, so it's not really an improvement. Fancy type systems are not a substitute for understanding the thing you're reasoning about.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Inheritance Often Doesn't Make Sense by marcosdumay on Saturday March 17, 2018 @09:28AM (#16606849)
> Fancy type systems are not a substitute for understanding the thing you're reasoning about.

And now you got me wondering about all the times I wrote a Haskell type, some bugged code, mindlessly changed code until the compiler stopped complaining, and it worked flawlessly.

But I guess your comment was about that "writing the types" stage. There were a few times I mindlessly wrote them too based on where they would be used (I could have the compiler give me them, but I'm not used to it). I can remember a few times I did both on the same functions, mindlessly write the types and the implementation.

[ Parent | on HN ]