Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • 14:42
    IowU opened #2239
  • 14:09
    joroKr21 assigned #12493
  • 14:09
    joroKr21 unlabeled #12493
  • 14:09
    joroKr21 review_requested #9815
  • 14:09
    joroKr21 ready_for_review #9815
  • 13:51
    arata-honda synchronize #2235
  • 11:35
    joroKr21 commented #10276
  • 11:32
    joroKr21 commented #10276
  • 11:19
    joroKr21 synchronize #9815
  • 09:38
    scharom16 closed #2238
  • 09:38
    scharom16 commented #2238
  • 07:09
    som-snytt commented #12502
  • 07:07
    som-snytt commented #12498
  • 06:26
    som-snytt opened #12502
  • 06:21
    som-snytt commented #12498
  • 05:57
    som-snytt commented #12498
  • 05:37
    som-snytt commented #12498
  • 03:32
    ritschwumm commented #10276
  • 00:59
    scala-jenkins milestoned #9815
  • 00:59
    joroKr21 opened #9815
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
but one view of untyped languages
trepidacious
@trepidacious
Vacuously typed! It's the new thing :)
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
is that they are actually unityped
so, everything has one type (e.g Object or whatever), with lots of tags (Int, String, Dict or whatever)
btw this is loosely related to the class vs type distinction in OO
trepidacious
@trepidacious
I've never completely got that, beyond "a class is one way of defining a type"
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
well, no
it's similar
the type is the compile time entity
the class is the runtime tag (a bit loose here cause I don't really bother with OO theory)
there's a really nice article though
wait a min
but basically when you pattern match on an Option you are checking to see if a value of type Option[A] has class Some or None
the problem is that most OO languages mingle these two aspects
trepidacious
@trepidacious
But Some and None are also types?
Rich
@Rich2
I've long thought that "objects" in "object orientated" are misnamed. They usually mean smart objects that have self knowledge as opposed to dumb data. Smart object is a bit of an oxymoron.
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
so Some defines both a type Some and a class Some
trepidacious
@trepidacious
Yup
So every class defines a type, but not every type is a class
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
from the article:
All of this is simply to say that we must be working with two separate concepts here.

The runtime shape and properties of the values that end up flying around when a program actually runs. This we call class.
The compile-time, statically-discoverable shape and properties of the expressions that fly around when a program is written. This we call type.
which should resonate (with some differences) from the talk about types and tags
trepidacious
@trepidacious
My opinion on OO is probably completely facile, but I really think the good bit is syntactic sugar and name-spacing, everything after that is normally a bad idea
@SystemFw Yes the compile-time / run-time distinction definitely makes sense
Rich
@Rich2
Pattern match on AnyRef should be a different function to a match on an Int or or Double. I don't think they should even have the same syntax.
Jose C
@jmcardon
omg
what on earth is happening with gitter
@SystemFw same thing in the scalaz room now
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
it's been two days of hell
trepidacious
@trepidacious
@jmcardon I've not seen anything weird, what's up?
Jose C
@jmcardon
it shows 1 unread message but there's nothing there
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
ghost notifications today, dropped messages yesterday (and who knows now)
Martijn Hoekstra
@martijnhoekstra
I've had dropped messages today as well
Jose C
@jmcardon
I've had it all weekend
dropped messages that require a gitter refrehs
trepidacious
@trepidacious
Maybe it's when they filter out the coin-mining :)
Rich
@Rich2
I think inheritance is a great idea, but primitive value types should not inherit.
Jose C
@jmcardon
I don't. There's other methods for code reuse
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
@trepidacious Note that this is still relevant to scala: a lot of people for example expect to be able to resolve an implicit based on the class of something, whereas you can only do it on the type
Rich
@Rich2
Dumb data should not be confused with smart objects.
Jose C
@jmcardon
"smart objects" are, in practice, not smart but rather fickle and brittle
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
so if you have a value of type Option and an instance for Some, you need to have the value to have type Some
OO means basically nothing, btw. And the only slightly coherent definition comes from languages like SmallTalk that have nothing to do with Java or Scala
Jose C
@jmcardon
Means nothing to you
Fabio Labella
@SystemFw
true :P
Jose C
@jmcardon
Loads of academics will debate with you on this.
Rich
@Rich2
Smart objects should be used for less numerous, larger, longer lasting pieces of data, while dumb data should be used for numerous, smaller, transient data.
Jose C
@jmcardon
but it's unreal how the OO part is never really debated
Martijn Hoekstra
@martijnhoekstra
subclassing and dynamic dispatch seems pretty core to OOP-in-practice
Jose C
@jmcardon
I'm fine with not holding state in "smart objects" at all