"=" is already odd, different from classes and all other non-object "{ ... }" statements.
Also, almost no non-advanced training material I can remember talks about "type"..
Running a Dev shop, why overload people's brains with something that looks archaic and has questionable use (at least for business applications)?
Also everyone has lots of historic interface/class/type/structure luggage from other languages that doesn't map into using types in place of interfaces.
I imagine there's valid use for it for dev tool creators.
a) What is your reason behind it?
b) Why archaic is a bad thing? Math notation of plus is archaic, let's change the notation?
I feel like people who have background in Java, C# would be more comfortable with notation of interface.
People who have background in functional languages, like OCaml (all ML family?) will prefer type notation.
People who don't have background - will accept whatever you show them first.
Argument "=" is already odd is a matter of taste. And if you don't like it based on that, there is no reason for me to argue. There are people who prefer to put semicolons in the end of JS and who don't...
I would be willing to bet that despite their different capabilities (types vs interfaces), people with an OOP background will be a bit biased towards interfaces while people with FP backgrounds will tend to prefer types.
I also disagree with this, I think for one an interface in the OO world conveys the message that somewhere you're going to have an implementation of sorts and when you don't have at least one of those that is not being explicit.
I would also argue that an interface conveys the message of abstraction which is not the case when one would use it to define the structure of an object which a type does a much better of.
I think a type is very explicit in that sense.
Also, you say that type is archaic, well, it's not, it is used in many other languages (modern languages) to represent exactly that.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Type syntax seems archaic and obscure, Interfaces are more direct and explicit...clarity wins
they look the same?
replace
interfacewithtypeadd equal sign before{→"=" is already odd, different from classes and all other non-object "{ ... }" statements.
Also, almost no non-advanced training material I can remember talks about "type"..
Running a Dev shop, why overload people's brains with something that looks archaic and has questionable use (at least for business applications)?
Also everyone has lots of historic interface/class/type/structure luggage from other languages that doesn't map into using types in place of interfaces.
I imagine there's valid use for it for dev tool creators.
You keep using term "archaic".
a) What is your reason behind it?
b) Why archaic is a bad thing? Math notation of plus is archaic, let's change the notation?
I feel like people who have background in Java, C# would be more comfortable with notation of interface.
People who have background in functional languages, like OCaml (all ML family?) will prefer type notation.
People who don't have background - will accept whatever you show them first.
Argument
"=" is already oddis a matter of taste. And if you don't like it based on that, there is no reason for me to argue. There are people who prefer to put semicolons in the end of JS and who don't...I would be willing to bet that despite their different capabilities (types vs interfaces), people with an OOP background will be a bit biased towards interfaces while people with FP backgrounds will tend to prefer types.
I also disagree with this, I think for one an
interfacein the OO world conveys the message that somewhere you're going to have an implementation of sorts and when you don't have at least one of those that is not being explicit.I would also argue that an
interfaceconveys the message of abstraction which is not the case when one would use it to define the structure of an object which atypedoes a much better of.I think a
typeis very explicit in that sense.Also, you say that
typeis archaic, well, it's not, it is used in many other languages (modern languages) to represent exactly that.