| ▲ | nyrikki 4 days ago | |
PO?O is just an object not bound by any restriction other than those forced by the Language.[0] From the typing lens, it may be useful to consider it from Rice's theorm, and an oversimplification that typing is converting a semantic property to a trivial property. (Damas-Hindley-Milner inference usually takes advantage of a pathological case, it is not formally trivial) There is no hard fast rules IMHO, because Rice, Rice-Shapiro, and Kreisel-Lacombe-Shoenfield-Tseitin theorms are related to generalized solutions as most undecidable problems. But Kreisel-Lacombe-Shoenfield-Tseitin deals with programs that are expected to HALT, yet it is still undecidable if one fixed program is equivalent to a fixed other program that always terminates. When you start stacking framework, domain, and language restrictions, the restrictions form a type of coupling, but as the decisions about integration vs disintegration are always tradeoffs it will always be context specific. Combinators (maybe not the Y combinator) and finding normal forms is probably a better lens than my attempt at the flawed version above. If you consider using po?is as the adapter part of the hex pattern, and notice how a service mesh is less impressive but often more clear in the hex form, it may help build intuitions where the appropriate application of the author's suggestions may fit. But it really is primarily decoupling of restrictions IMHO. Sometimes the tradeoffs go the other way and often they change over time. | ||