Re:Ruby Methods Are Colorless
by lmm on Wednesday July 24, 2024 @12:03AM
(#41053507)
> And, it absolutely should not require creating two identical function definitions to get around the function coloring problem - that's completely indefensible.
Oh yes, absolutely. But the solution to that is stop using joke languages that can't do kind polymorphism.
> Yes, and the IDE can show you that information, exactly like it does the types of arguments.
How can it, if the language doesn't give it that information? Either you have a language that can reliably distinguish between sync and async calls in a standard way - which is to say, it has a type system that distinguishes between sync and async, whether it calls it that or not - or your IDE has an ad-hoc informally specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of one.
Re:Ruby Methods Are Colorless
by pjmlp on Wednesday July 24, 2024 @02:13AM
(#41054067)
Good luck with that, when we keep using glue languages for full blown applications, and then shelling out to C extensions, instead of ones that could do the job all by themselves.
Oh yes, absolutely. But the solution to that is stop using joke languages that can't do kind polymorphism.
> Yes, and the IDE can show you that information, exactly like it does the types of arguments.
How can it, if the language doesn't give it that information? Either you have a language that can reliably distinguish between sync and async calls in a standard way - which is to say, it has a type system that distinguishes between sync and async, whether it calls it that or not - or your IDE has an ad-hoc informally specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of one.