Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmm | Hacker News Reader

Low maintenance is important, but so is functionality. It's frustrating to have to fix code that was working and gets broken by some update, but it's even more frustrating to have to copy/paste code because your language doesn't have the abstraction facilities that let you factor out the commonality.

View on HN

> but it's even more frustrating to have to copy/paste code because your language doesn't have the abstraction facilities that let you factor out commonality.

I find this statement to be less of a problem in many modern programming languages (or greatly exaggerated by a specific language fan when comparing his/her preferred tools vs "the other languages).

I think in higher-kinded types these days, and can't stand to use a language without them (where I necessarily end up copy-pasting). There are plenty of modern languages without that.

I've only had to copy-paste code because of Scala's lack of support for polykinded code a few times, but it was very frustrating every time. Hardly any languages, even modern ones, support that.

What language doesn't have abstraction facilities to factor out commonality? Even assembler has macros :-)

Misspoke; I meant "don't let you factor out that particular piece of commonality".

If you think copy&paste is an option at all, I agree. If you are to rely on somebody else's work, better make it work they have put an actual effort in getting right, for which they have some stakes.

Doing "boring stack" implies you actually know what you are doing, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com