this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
150 points (94.6% liked)

Programmer Humor

32533 readers
408 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
class BaseFunction {
  static #allowInstantiation = false;

  constructor(...args) {
    if (!BaseFunction.#allowInstantiation) {
      throw new Error(
        "Why are you trying to use 'new'? Classes are so 2015! Use our fancy 'run' method instead!"
      );
    }
    for (const [name, validator] of this.parameters()) {
      this[name] = validator(args.shift());
    }
  }

  parameters() {
    return [];
  }

  body() {
    return undefined;
  }

  static run(...args) {
    BaseFunction.#allowInstantiation = true;
    const instance = new this(...args);
    BaseFunction.#allowInstantiation = false;
    return instance.body();
  }
}

class Add extends BaseFunction {
  parameters() {
    return [
      ["a", (x) => Number(x)],
      ["b", (x) => Number(x)],
    ];
  }

  body() {
    return this.a + this.b;
  }
}

console.log(Add.run(5, 3)); // 8



top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 days ago (1 children)

A true FP programmer would make it apply instead of run...

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago

Ahem, map...

And, of course, everything is a lazy list even if the functions can't handle more than one element in each list.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I've seen something similar to this at work. Horrible.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago

validators is a shitty name for something that actually does type conversion.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

That'll be fun in a multi threaded setting!

[–] [email protected] 41 points 4 days ago

OP, what's your address? I have a "present" for you

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago

This should be programmer horror

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What theme are you using, i like it!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Looks like Catppuccin Mocha

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Actually now that check it again its not quite right for mocha. But it's close!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're right, the background is too dark. Probably crust instead of base. Maybe it was customised or created improperly.
But I'm fairly confident that the palette is Catppuccin, probably Mocha.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I can confirm it's Catppuccin Mocha. I am not currently aware of the background color issue, but I'll look into the matter soon. Thanks for letting me know. Also how dare you. But thanks.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

The background is most likely a color that is in the Mocha palette, just one that is intended for dark accents, not regular background.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago

JS disgusts me

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 days ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Yep, some code examples from the official documentation. This:

printPersons(
    roster,
    (Person p) -> p.getGender() == Person.Sex.MALE
        && p.getAge() >= 18
        && p.getAge() <= 25
);

...is syntactic sugar for this:

interface CheckPerson {
    boolean test(Person p);
}

printPersons(
    roster,
    new CheckPerson() {
        public boolean test(Person p) {
            return p.getGender() == Person.Sex.MALE
                && p.getAge() >= 18
                && p.getAge() <= 25;
        }
    }
);

...which is syntactic sugar for this:

interface CheckPerson {
    boolean test(Person p);
}

class CheckPersonEligibleForSelectiveService implements CheckPerson {
    public boolean test(Person p) {
        return p.gender == Person.Sex.MALE &&
            p.getAge() >= 18 &&
            p.getAge() <= 25;
    }
}

printPersons(roster, new CheckPersonEligibleForSelectiveService());

The printPersons function looks like this:

public static void printPersons(List<Person> roster, CheckPerson tester) {
    for (Person p : roster) {
        if (tester.test(p)) {
            p.printPerson();
        }
    }
}

Basically, if you accept a parameter that implements an interface with only one method (CheckPerson), then your caller can provide you an object like that by using the lambda syntax from the first example.

They had to retrofit lambdas into the language, and they sure chose the one hammer that the language has.

Source: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/lambdaexpressions.html

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago

That's not quite right. In bytecode, lambdas are significantly more efficient than anonymous class instances. So while the lambda implementation is semantically equivalent, characterizing it like you have is reductive and a bit misleading.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

Hence, Clojure. It's not just functions that implement IFn... as the string of "cannot cast to clojure.lang.IFn" errors that I get because I couldn't be bothered to validate my data's shape is eager to inform me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Golang also does this, but it's not classes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Golang uses modules, not classes. Each of which may have its own main function.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Huh? Main file? Do you mean main package? A module can contain an arbitrary number of main packages but I don’t see how that has anything to do with this post. Also are you saying modules are equivalent to classes? That may be the strangest take I’ve ever heard about Go.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

I meant main function. Oops

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 days ago

Dont look at C++ with std:: function

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago

I'm pretty sure this post is designed to kill the soul. I am made slightly worse for witnessing this abortion of an implementation and I will never be quite the same again.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

I think that's called a functor.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

Amazing, lol