Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> But for larger applications, especially that do low-level stuff, the tradeoff is cluttering your namespace with single use parameters.

What does this mean? I have not figured out any way to interpret this, such that it is a consequence of choosing strong typing.

Your second paragraph is more of the straw man that we are discussing in an adjacent thread.



I mean that you need to assign each type a distinct name, and in many programming languages, the namespace for types is effectively global.

If you add say a thousand types for all the things combinations of things you may want to represent, then you've effectively added the need to have a thousand type names.


That is merely being explicit about what is implicit otherwise. When you are being explicit, there is at least the possibility that these declarations could be scoped - and, in many languages, this is something you can do.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: