Conversation

Brendan Zabarauskas
@brendanzab
Different static type systems offer different trade-offs, and most are far from perfect. If you ask people to adopt them then you are asking them to accept their failings in exchange for some some compelling super-powers, and a promise that they will be better in the future.
Quote Tweet
Hillel
@hillelogram
·
((Hopefully last thread on the "Maybe Not" talk)) I'm seeing a lot of people object with the following argument: 1. Hickey has problem X with type system A 2. Type system B doesn't have X => Hickey is wrong about static typing. This is a really common, and IMO poor, argument.
Show this thread
1
6
Brendan Zabarauskas
@brendanzab
Personally I'm cool with the trade-off, but I've needed to make peace with the fact that there is no type system that will ever really satisfy me now. I'm optimistic that we are iterating towards a better place though. The future is exciting!
1
7
Brendan Zabarauskas
@brendanzab
Sorry to bring all this up in people's timeline again - I guess I'm just hoping to encourage empathy and build some bridges! I'm not alone in forgetting that we're all trying to solve hard problems, in different ways!
2
3
Graydon Hoare
@graydon_pub
Mhm. The weird thing is that in his talk Hickey clearly pointed to type systems that don't exhibit each of the problems he was complaining about. I.e. he was offering very constructive feedback about type system design. Type system folks should study that feedback!
1
2
Brendan Zabarauskas
@brendanzab
Yeah, I’ve always liked the RDL stuff in clojure/spec. I’ve often thought it would be cool to see structural type systems with namespaced field/type associations.
1
1
Graydon Hoare
@graydon_pub
Definitely. There's a lot of good design-thought (usually with carefully laid-out justification) in Clojure for anyone willing to read/listen/borrow. The style can be off-putting but so can a lot of PL communities. Still worth studying.
1
3
Brendan Zabarauskas
@brendanzab
Yeah, it seems like Hickey is retaliating against how parts of other communities respond to him. Do I think he should be more careful in his position to not be complicit in to cultivating cult-like thought in his community? Yes. Do I think we can also be better? Also yes.
2
3
(have-YER Candeira) for you for your cousin
@candeira
Both things. However, the reception I've had as a newcomer to Haskell has been positive, even when I had very cockamamie ideas about monads and wasn't afraid to express them. The first half of Hickey's talk is just bizarre, though. Because monads aren't used as in his examples.
2
1