Language Design: Stop Using `<>` for Generics
soc.me
TL;DR: Use [] instead of <> for generics. It will save you a lot of avoidable trouble down the road.
  • Lojcs@lemm.ee
    5·
    9 days ago

    Also dropping here the list of contrarian views op listed in the next article:

    Language Design: Popular, but Wrong

    1. static members
    2. properties
    3. <> for generics
    4. [] for arrays
    5. Type ident instead of ident: Type
    6. having if-then-else and switch/case and a ternary operator
    7. having both modifiers and annotations
    8. async/await
    9. separate namespaces for methods and fields
    10. method overloading
    11. namespace declarations doubling as imports
    12. special syntax for casting
    13. using cast syntax for things that are not casts
    14. requiring () for methods without parameters
    • Quatlicopatlix@feddit.org
      31·
      8 days ago

      Yea what is wrong with static members? What do they even mean with “[] for arrays”? Why is that bad? Method overloding is bad? why??

      • Lojcs@lemm.ee
        21·
        8 days ago

        I’m assuming static members are bad because globals are bad

        “[] for arrays” is because they want to reserve it for generics once <> is retired

        I think the oveloading thing is about the c/cpp thing where you can define the same function multiple times in the same namespace which yeah sucks imo

        • Quatlicopatlix@feddit.org
          1·
          8 days ago

          I mean in c/c++ statics arent really globals, you cant acess the from outsside their scope can you? They just retain their value or am i wrong?

          [] for arrays is the thing that has been used forever so why should we not use it annymore?

          Overloading is also pretty usefull, overloading class constructors is great. I am not a 40 year experience developer but learning c/c++ i never thought that was so bad.

          • Lojcs@lemm.ee
            1·
            8 days ago

            I have no idea about c/c++ statics, does c even have statics? What kind of a scope could statics even have?

            I’m very much novice myself and I never liked the idea of trusting the compiler with figuring out the correct overload and neither do I like not being able to tell which version of a function is being called at a glance. Named constructors ftw

            • nodeluna@programming.devEnglish
              2·
              6 days ago

              you can constrain functions with c++20 concepts to ensure the compiler is calling the correct function if you’re that worried

            • Quatlicopatlix@feddit.org
              3·
              8 days ago

              I mean the thing with overloading is that your functions should have some difference in the paraameters they take, if you make 3 functions that have the exact same parameters of course you will not be shure what the compiler does(alötho i dont think that it would compile? But i dont think that i have ever done that)

              If you have a foo(int x float y) and a foo( int x ) function and you call it with just a x as parameter you can be shure the compiler will call your second function. If the compiler for some reasson tried to use the first foo it would throw a error because it wants a int and a float and you just gave it one int.

              I am shure that

              Foo(){ static int x =0;
              X +=1; Printf(“%d”,); }

              Foo(); every time foo is called x increments so print will be 1,2,3,4… for every call of foo

              Printf(“%d”,x); <- wont work because x cant be acessed here, it is out of scope.