And I don't like road bridges made of concrete and steel, preferring popsicle sticks. But engineering is not driven by feelings, so this is irrelevant.
> When you use a type to instantiate an object you are creating a Thing.
No, like you said earlier, you are creating a classification. The thing being classified isn't expressible. The languages we have are too limited for that. As a workaround we carry an implied assumption that underneath a classification lies a thing, but as you are finding out that quickly breaks down when there is not a clean association between the thing and the classification.
I like what you are thinking, though. I can see how our programming languages could be a lot better if there was such expressibility. But what that looks like is an unsolved computer science problem, I'm afraid.
> We are
No. Definitely not. We touched on it briefly at the beginning, which is perhaps what is confusing you, but we long moved past that to discuss how one might model the world, namely with expression in natural language, but to a lesser extent all programming languages.
> No other language makes you do this, so it's a problem with golang.
English also makes you do this. Failure to will result in an "aktshually, ..." error.
>And I don't like road bridges made of concrete and steel, preferring popsicle sticks. But engineering is not driven by feelings, so this is irrelevant.
The issue is you think I'm saying it has to be made out of popsicle sticks. I'm saying it you can use wood or steel and your saying something along the lines of ONLY use steel. Steel is the only way! That's go.
You're just going off into complete fantasy land thinking that my examples don't work. My examples work. Your examples also work. But my examples are MORE intuitive and simple. Your examples are convoluted and strange.
>No, like you said earlier, you are creating a classification. The thing being classified isn't expressible. The languages we have are too limited for that. As a workaround we carry an implied assumption that underneath a classification lies a thing, but as you are finding out that quickly breaks down when there is not a clean association between the thing and the classification.
When YOU instantiate the class, you are creating a THING. The instantiation is an expression of THAT thing.
Maybe you're referring to a type so narrow that it can only contain One thing? I believe TS has some ability to do this and Idris as well. Basically dependently typed languages allow this.
>I like what you are thinking, though. I can see how our programming languages could be a lot better if there was such expressibility. But what that looks like is an unsolved computer science problem, I'm afraid.
I don't think you have a clue about what you're talking about.
>No. Definitely not. We touched on it briefly at the beginning, which is perhaps what is confusing you, but we long moved past that to discuss how one might model the world, namely with expression in natural language, but to a lesser extent all programming languages.
No you moved on. I stayed on topic. I'm just using models of the world to show you how stupid go is. There are certain models of the world Go can't handle. That's all I'm doing. But I guess the details are getting too complicated for you that you inadverdantly lost track and moved on.
>English also makes you do this. Failure to will result in an "aktshually, ..." error.
Is this supposed to be a joke? English supports circular dependencies. Your equivalent of an error in english is a grammar error. Circular dependencies don't trigger a grammar error.
If you're trying to make a joke it's not even funny.
And I don't like road bridges made of concrete and steel, preferring popsicle sticks. But engineering is not driven by feelings, so this is irrelevant.
> When you use a type to instantiate an object you are creating a Thing.
No, like you said earlier, you are creating a classification. The thing being classified isn't expressible. The languages we have are too limited for that. As a workaround we carry an implied assumption that underneath a classification lies a thing, but as you are finding out that quickly breaks down when there is not a clean association between the thing and the classification.
I like what you are thinking, though. I can see how our programming languages could be a lot better if there was such expressibility. But what that looks like is an unsolved computer science problem, I'm afraid.
> We are
No. Definitely not. We touched on it briefly at the beginning, which is perhaps what is confusing you, but we long moved past that to discuss how one might model the world, namely with expression in natural language, but to a lesser extent all programming languages.
> No other language makes you do this, so it's a problem with golang.
English also makes you do this. Failure to will result in an "aktshually, ..." error.