This essay says that inheritance is harmful and if possible you should “ban inheritance completely”. You see these arguments a lot, as well as things like “prefer composition to inheritance”. A lot of these arguments argue that in practice inheritance has problems. But they don’t preclude inheritance working in another context, maybe with a better language syntax. And it doesn’t explain why inheritance became so popular in the first place. I want to explore what’s fundamentally challenging about inheritance and why we all use it anyway.

    • John@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      @onlinepersona

      An enum is a sum type because the number of inhabitants of the enum is the sum of the inhabitants of its parts.

      A product type’s number of inhabitants is the product of its parts’ inhabitants. So a struct would fit that definition, or a pair, or a tuple.

      Looking at the pic on your Cartesian product link:
      if A is an enum {x,y,z} and B is an enum {1,2,3}, then a struct AxB has 9 possible inhabitants.

      • onlinepersona@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        OK, I think I’m getting it.

        A product is a set that this is the result of an ordered cartesian products.

        struct Car {
          make: String,
          model: String,
          seats: u8,
        } 
        

        Car = String X String x u8.


        An enum is a series of "or"s.

        enum Animal {
          Dog,
          Cat,
          Giraffe,
          Chimpanzee,
        }
        

        can also be thought of as Animal = Dog | Cat | Giraffe | Chimpanzee. Where Dog is a type that only has single value in its set aka Animal = {1} | {2} | {3} | {4}, but it could also be strings, or other objects. Rust however allows more complex objects:

        enum ComplexEnum {
            Nothing,
            Something(u32),
            LotsOfThings {
                usual_struct_stuff: bool,
                blah: String,
            }
        }
        

        In this case is Something(u32) the equivalent of any “tagged” u32, meaning in memory it’s something like a Tag + 32 bits where Tag is a constant string of bits, maybe itself a u32? Wouldn’t that make it a product type?
        But then LotsOfThings is itself a product type LotsOfThings = bool x String.

        So to put it all together ComplexEnum = Nothing | TaggedU32 | (bool x String)? Is that correct?

        Anti Commercial-AI license

        • arendjr@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          So to put it all together ComplexEnum = Nothing | TaggedU32 | (bool x String)? Is that correct?

          Pretty much, yeah. But just be aware the tags are effectively unique constants, so each has only one value. For consistency I would write it as:

          ComplexEnum = Nothing | Something(u32) | LotsOfThings(bool x String)

          In this notation,Something(u32) could also be written as 1 x u32 because tags are constants.

          • onlinepersona@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            OK, so finally I get it. It’s pity none of the blogs I’ve read or wikipedia articles in existence spell it out this way. Instead it’s a bunch of math mumbo jumbo.

            Thanks for helping me reach understanding 🙏 And thanks to @Kacarott@feddit.de too.

            Anti Commercial-AI license