I also disagree with this, I think for one an interface in the OO world conveys the message that somewhere you're going to have an implementation of sorts and when you don't have at least one of those that is not being explicit.
I would also argue that an interface conveys the message of abstraction which is not the case when one would use it to define the structure of an object which a type does a much better of.
I think a type is very explicit in that sense.
Also, you say that type is archaic, well, it's not, it is used in many other languages (modern languages) to represent exactly that.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I also disagree with this, I think for one an
interfacein the OO world conveys the message that somewhere you're going to have an implementation of sorts and when you don't have at least one of those that is not being explicit.I would also argue that an
interfaceconveys the message of abstraction which is not the case when one would use it to define the structure of an object which atypedoes a much better of.I think a
typeis very explicit in that sense.Also, you say that
typeis archaic, well, it's not, it is used in many other languages (modern languages) to represent exactly that.