> FWIW, so do I. IMO, the transition from functions+structs style to > structs+generics style is smoother than to methods+objects. > > It would be nice to also have a smooth structs+generics to > methods+objects transition, but I don't know how that would work yet.
I’m glad to hear you agree. I personally find OO paradigms reasonable when performing side-effectful programming, but attempting to maintain purity while using OO is a nightmare. I’ve almost considered writing a wrapper around racket/gui using generics instead of classes just to see what that would be like. > I think it may be easier to start with the "`require/typed` untyped > interfaces" route. That way you avoid having to deal with typechecking > `define-generics` forms for now. This is a good point. I think I may attempt to do just that. > I think the reason generics are not used pervasively is that they're > a relatively recent addition, and that a lot of the "obvious" use cases > would require retrofitting the standard library, which hasn't been done > yet. (I hope to get to work on that this summer, but I need to finish my > PhD first ;) ) Yeah, this was certainly my impression as well. I’d love to see generic collections in #lang racket2. :) Anyway, thanks for the advice and comments! I’m not sure how quickly I’ll go about doing this, but it’s definitely something I’d like to work on, so I’d hope to make at least some progress within a semi-reasonable amount of time. Plus I end up wanting it so often that I’ll probably be motivated to get it working as soon as possible. :P -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/2F1613F1-5EC2-40B1-9F12-F228DEA88A88%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
