Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] Operator overloading
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2007-03-09 (10:26) |
From: | Jon Harrop <jon@f...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Operator overloading |
On Thursday 08 March 2007 20:02, Robert Fischer wrote: > Which is exactly my point. You should have to document all that, because > they are genuinely different operations. You have these operations, so why > shouldn't you document them? Or, better yet, abstract them and organize > them. By using operator overloading, you're sweeping under the rug genuine > complexity -- something that my surprise later developers! Because the distinction is purely incidental as it depends upon the language's choice of type system. > When I see "+", I want to know what that means. With operator overloading, > I don't know. The same can be said of type inference. Then you're advocating explicit type annotations everywhere. > An IDE might help me out there, but that's just polishing a > genuine ding on code readbility and maintainability. Why should I have to > rely on an IDE to make sense of my code? This is precisely why I rely so heavily on Tuareg's type throwback in Emacs. If you sacrifice your development environment (even if it is just emacs) then productivity goes down. Failing to embrace a future of graphical IDEs is a bad idea, IMHO. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists