/explore
|
You are here 
|
blog.metaobject.com | ||
| | | | |
www.parsonsmatt.org
|
|
| | | | | [AI summary] This article introduces a blog series aimed at programming by object-oriented developers who are learning the functional programming paradigm in Haskell. | |
| | | | |
krakendev.io
|
|
| | | | | Subclassing can suck. There are so many ways to get it wrong and it's so easy to fall into anti-patterns when you create such a tight coupling between two classes. Most of the time, the need for subclassing can actuallybe replaced by abstraction through protocol-oriented, value-oriented, and functional programming. In fact, I may even argue that doing it that way can far outweigh the "benefits" of subclassing the majority of the time. | |
| | | | |
www.cocoawithlove.com
|
|
| | | | | There's an industry-wide push for protocol-oriented programming where shared interfaces, behaviors and substitutability are provided through protocols rather than subclasses. In this article though, I'll look at a case where I chose to use a subclass, instead of a protocol, to take advantage of some specific differences between classes and protocols. | |
| | | | |
sophiebits.com
|
|
| | | |||
