You're fundamentally on shaky ground when you use your ignorance as the basis for deciding someone else's level of ignorance.
Notice you started your response with a question. You need the right answer to that question before you can meaningfully continue.
Re:Understanding contravariance
by kenmicklas on Friday June 22, 2018 @10:24AM
(#17374165)
Huh? I'm pointing out that the phrase used by OP doesn't really make much sense. I'm not like a dank profunctor whiz or something but I think I know what co/contravariance are...
The OP's statement doesn't make sense to you.
That doesn't necessarily mean OP's point doesn't make sense or that OP doesn't know what he/she it talking about. It means you need more info before you can judge. (Also: I didn't mean to make any statement about your knowledge of type systems. I was referring to your understanding of what OP was attempting to communicate.)
OP's statement doesn't make much sense in context of the article under discussion. Perhaps it make sense in another context.
Re:Understanding contravariance
by pharrington on Friday June 22, 2018 @11:50AM
(#17374919)
He's arguing that gp's opinion is, in fact, grounded in his opening question's exemplary ignorance.
It sounds from this and your other comments on this thread that you are preaching from a relative point of ignorance about type systems.
This kind of anti-progress attitude is why writing software is miserable and we leave trillions in productivity on the table. Understanding how to use languages with advanced type systems takes some time if you are not used to it, but it's significantly _less_ arbitrary bullshit to absorb than what you had to learn to use C or Java effectively and comes with far more added value in return.