Re:Software reuse is more like an organ transplant than snap...
by hellofunk on Thursday June 25, 2020 @12:45PM
(#23642635)
All of your points make great sense in theory, but in practice it rarely works out so smoothly.
> If it's an abstract data type, it doesn't have to be understood by the caller, it just has to be passed to another "lego brick" which understands the abstract interface. If it's a structured data-type, then there's no reason why it shouldn't be understood by the caller, the type should tell you how to consume it.
And this is exactly how any well constructed OO API works as well.
You can have really good and really bad APIs in any language, it really is up to the skill of the developers. I firmly believe that, there’s no language or tool that suddenly makes you create better things.
I have in my jobs interacted with high profile robust APIs in C++ as well as functional languages. They can be a joy to use when designed well, regardless of language.
> If it's an abstract data type, it doesn't have to be understood by the caller, it just has to be passed to another "lego brick" which understands the abstract interface. If it's a structured data-type, then there's no reason why it shouldn't be understood by the caller, the type should tell you how to consume it.
And this is exactly how any well constructed OO API works as well.
You can have really good and really bad APIs in any language, it really is up to the skill of the developers. I firmly believe that, there’s no language or tool that suddenly makes you create better things.
I have in my jobs interacted with high profile robust APIs in C++ as well as functional languages. They can be a joy to use when designed well, regardless of language.