You mean to tell me other programming languages don't have pattern matching that can match to all of these types? How do people cope with the fact that their languages don't make it this easy?
Do other programming languages really not have switch pattern matching?
Christopher Ross
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
peps.python.org
twitter.com
Caleb James
Kevin Brown
stop baiting javapoo
Alexander Moore
function x(a)
print("this is a ", typeof(a), a);
end;
Nathan Davis
python does this
Dominic Perez
in c++ this is just
std::visit([](const auto& v) { std::cout
Juan Foster
Does it really?
Cameron Jenkins
> 0 references
Even author of this shit is not using it
Oliver Turner
>match to all of these types
Rust can do this just fine, assuming a is actually an enum type, and not some Box (basically the equivalent of "object"). But if you're doing that level of fuckery, you probably need to be shown the door anyways.
Juan Davis
any expression can be matched with any expression
Gavin Torres
Gavin Bennett
in haskell this is just
show
Elijah Howard
There's nothing wrong with open unions besides the fact that Rust doesn't handle them very comfortably.
Heavily OOP languages favor open polymorphism at the expense of closed polymorphism, Rust does the opposite.
Justin Reed
>open unions
Sure... if that's what you want to call telling the type checker to go fuck itself.
Ryan Collins
>Do other programming languages really not have expression oriented syntax?
This switch stuff is just plain shit if you actually use it.
You can only put expressions after them so you have to use a regular switch if you want to do something vaguely useful, but then you can't return anything or put it anywhere useful.
Fundamentally, putting statements in the language just completely ruins any hope of having nice looking syntax.
>x switch
C# is so bloated that they have to use almost every way that you could write a set of reserved keywords to add stuff that some random FP lang had 20 years ago.
They built fucking SQL statements into the language, it's beyond belief.
I don't mind the language itself but you could compress its features into something 10% the size and probably have less stuff missing.
Daniel Rodriguez
>public static
Holy fuck Java is ugly and retarded.
Jackson Perry
It can be useful to tell the typechecker to fuck off, yeah. Any correct type system prohibits some valid programs. (This is also the principle behind unsafe blocks.)
But it's not inherently dangerous. Trait objects are open and type-safe. You can't downcast trait objects besides Any, but the only reason for that is efficiency, it'd require adding a TypeId to every vtable.
Luis Mitchell
Bro that's C#
Jordan Young
How do you cope with not being able to write a free function?
Austin Hill
90% of the time, the OOP polymorphism solution boils down to writing pieces of the same function in multiple places instead of keeping it all together.
Zachary Martin
>that's not Java, it's Microsoft™ Java
Landon Hall
>Box
Do...do people really do this?
Xavier Edwards
Java btfo
Evan Watson
>I don't mind the language itself but you could compress its features into something 10% the size and probably have less stuff missing.
Most of the cshart features don't integrate well either. Try combining pointer/refs with generics or iterators, Try having fixed in readonly structs, try using the ever so fucking pointless mess that is ToString(),