80% ? The site says they cover List, Map, and Func(function). Now, there are a lot of containers in the world like heaps, binary trees, n-ary trees, queues, vectors, mactrices, and stacks, just to name a few. Even in lists there are array based lists, linked lists, skip lists, etc, etc. Plus, generics aren't really about containers as much as they're about...well...generic programming. After all, one of their generic types is "Func." So anything that can kinda be seen as a first class function, like say a parser, can benefit from from genericness. It's a very, very powerful tool that spans far more than a few containers.
I'm not dissing them or the language or anybody who thinks that Fan is the right level of complexity. It's an interesting design choice to make duck typing the default when you need generic stuff. I'm just debating the 80% comment. It's possible that Fan's built in generics will solve 80% of the generic programming issues in the kinds of problems that some people throw at Fan, but that's just saying that Fan isn't a general purpose language for them and that they've decided to use Fan fairly narrowly. On Dec 19, 12:44 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" <phil.swen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I could live w/o generics, but if you are going to have static typing- > might as well do generics. I saw some reference to them having > generic behavior for built in containers.... which would solve 80% of > the issue. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
