this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
948 points (97.3% liked)
Programmer Humor
32718 readers
305 users here now
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.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Recently I encountered an issue with “casting”. I had a class “foo” and a class “bar” that extended class foo. I made a list of class “foo” and added “bar” objects to the list. But when I tried use objects from “foo” list and cast them to bar and attempted to use a “bar” member function I got a runtime error saying it didn’t exists maybe this was user error but it doesn’t align with what I come to expect from languages.
I just feel like instead of slapping some silly abstraction on a language we should actually work on integrating a proper type safe language in its stead.
I think that might be user error as I can't recreate that:
Yeah, you would get a runtime error calling that member without checking that it exists.
Because that object is of a type where that member may or may not exist. That is literally the exact same behaviour as Java or C#.
If I cast or type check it to make sure it's of type Bar rather than checking for the member explicitly it still works:
And when I cast it to Foo it throws a compile time error, not a runtime error: