Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open

Re:Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open by shrimp_emoji on Sunday January 19, 2020 @04:07PM (#22094088)

Look at this C++ code:

  std::vector<Pair<std::string, MyInt>> s;
  s.push_back(Pair<std::string, MyInt>("a", MyInt(1)));
  s.push_back(Pair<std::string, MyInt>("b", MyInt(2)));
  s.push_back(Pair<std::string, MyInt>("c", MyInt(3)));

Gross. I'm being punished.

Look at this Rust code:

  let mut s = Vec::new();
  s.push(Pair::new("a", 1));
  s.push(Pair::new("b", 2));
  s.push(Pair::new("c", 3));

Both are statically typed, but one uses inference. It practically feels like Python everywhere except where type declarations matter most to me -- function signatures:

  fn foo(x: f64, y: f64) -> Point {...}

In Python, those aren't very helpful.

  def foo(x, y): ...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open by woud420 on Monday January 20, 2020 @12:32PM (#22100451)

You mean this C++ code?

  std::vector<std::pair<std::string, int>> s;
  s.push_back({"a", 1});
  s.push_back({"b", 2});
  s.push_back({"c", 3});

I mean let's compare apples to apples here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open by shrimp_emoji on Tuesday January 21, 2020 @03:20PM (#22111079)

Damn, I forgot about uniform initialization. D:

That IS better than Rust since it migrates the type from n container members to just the 1 container. It doesn't seem possible to replicate that in Rust[0].

My Rust evangelism IS hurt by this. But its HP bar is big[1].

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10891892

1: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/bya8k6/programming_wi...

[ Parent | on HN ]