• armchair_progamer@programming.devOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah this one’s a miss on my end. I saw “ad-hoc polymorphism is UNSAFE?” and well, it does a better job reinforcing that ad-hoc polymorphism is not unsafe.

    Author should have wrote a piece “how even type-safe programs can fail” and used his example to show that. Because what this really shows is that type-safety doesn’t prevent programs with the correct types but bad semantics. But that’s not ad-hoc polymorphism; it can happen anywhere (sans ultra-specific types) including even the author’s workaround if he used Vec<Vec instead