Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It seems so ad hoc. It's not really design when one just papers over a very specific shortcoming.

I agree that overloading the semantics of function calls is ugly, but to play the devil's advocate, does it have to be "design" in that sense if it truly does address the shortcoming in a practically sufficient manner?

Aside from not appealing at all to my sense of esthetics, I have no qualms about this because it does address a problem that a lot of people have complained about in a way that I could get the idea within a couple of minutes of reading the proposal. That said, a keyword might have been nicer.

I suppose the difference between a "quick fix" in a language and in a codebase, is that the former will be crystalized forever.

Language designers seem to like to bang the drum about the ethos of "Orthogonal Features". I know Go's have, in presentations. But that seems to be cast off when the going gets tough. See also "Contracts" in Go generics, which is mostly the same thing as the existing Interfaces feature, but working around the fact that interfaces didn't have a good story for symbolic operators. Orthogonal? Smorthogonal!

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