Thread

Why isn't mutable a subtype of immutable, or vice versa?

28 points · 56 comments · ibobev

zkmon · 1789885117 · focus · HN ↗
The fact that it requires so much explanation, indicates the level of degradation in the reasoning ability of the audience. A value of a subtype shall deliver all of the expectations of its super type, because it is wearing both the hats of super type and sub type.
1. Shorel · 1789886069 · focus · HN ↗
  Not all all. It merely indicates that this is an strict logic approach to the topic.
  <a href="https://commonplacefacts.com/2022/07/27/principia-mathematica-300-page-proof-one-plus-one-equals-two/" rel="nofollow">https://commonplacefacts.com/2022/07/27/principia-mathematic...
  1. applfanboysbgon · 1789886733 · focus · HN ↗
    What part of GP's one-sentence explanation is not strictly logical? Does obfuscating a simple logical concept by describing it in academia-wanky-terms like Liskov's Substitution Principle make it More Logical? Or does it just make the author and their in-crowd feel more intelligent?
    Note, also, that the article isn't even objective. It asserts that the definition of a subtype is Liskov's principle. However, Liskov's principle is only one of multiple possible definitions. In other words, the article is really only invoking Liskov's name as an appeal to authority. So much for strict logic.
    pestatije · 1789886969 · focus · HN ↗
    intelligence is overrated

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.