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



Lucy :3
link
fedilink
29h

“Why are you trying to use ‘new’? Classes are so 2015! […]”

Uses new to throw error

NewDark [he/him]
link
fedilink
English
106d

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.

A true FP programmer would make it apply instead of run

Ahem, map

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

burghler
link
fedilink
116d

JS disgusts me

OP, what’s your address? I have a “present” for you

It’s just Java

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.

Ephera
link
fedilink
22
edit-2
7d

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

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.

Kairos
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
7d

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

Ethan
link
fedilink
English
1
edit-2
6d

How so?

Kairos
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
5d

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

Ethan
link
fedilink
English
16d

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.

Kairos
link
fedilink
16d

I meant main function. Oops

Dont look at C++ with std:: function

@bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
link
fedilink
English
176d

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

This should be programmer horror

What theme are you using, i like it!

Looks like Catppuccin Mocha

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

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.

@sebastiancarlos@lemmy.sdf.org
creator
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
5d

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.

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

Thanks!

That’ll be fun in a multi threaded setting!

Very DRY.

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

I think that’s called a functor.

Create a post

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

Rules:

  • Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
  • No NSFW content.
  • Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
  • 1 user online
  • 141 users / day
  • 300 users / week
  • 692 users / month
  • 2.83K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 1.56K Posts
  • 34.7K Comments
  • Modlog