Re:Why Go and Not Rust?
by sytringy05 on Monday September 16, 2019 @08:57PM
(#20990130)
It definitely is common with generics, it happens all the time. Here's some production code I've worked on recently:
I like generics, but I don't love this sort of thing and it's not even a mis-use of them
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Many languages do support type alias. In C# you would do
using NiceType = TypeReference<FooResponseCollectionResource<MemberUpdate>>
// ....
new NiceType ()My point was that the commonly mocked VisitorObserverFacadeFactoryFactory Java idiom doesn't normally use generics at all.
Of course you can mix generics with terribly named classes and OOP patterns, but that's hardly a problem with generics themselves.
what's the alternative ? using an "untyped" variable ?
but then you loose type checking and some people don't like to loose type checking...
Re:Why Go and Not Rust?
by KptMarchewa on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @07:46AM
(#20993842)
Do not use patterns that require you to write code like that.
You never have cases where you have a list of lists? Or do you introduce a pointless wrapper type for the inner lists to "hide" the generics?
That's the answer for me.
The problem in those cases always the abuse of often obsolete OOP patterns and misnamed classes.