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
Steven Shaw
@steshaw
No worries! Haven't seen much except for the Rich Hickey's gist about open source—seems somewhat sour but also understandable and possibly a bit of a hissy/hickey fit. I noticed your secret project in another tweet … so the future of programming _is_ dependently typed, isn't it?
1
Brendan Zabarauskas
@brendanzab
I'm pretty sure it is! But it's still a long road ahead. Many problems still need to be solved, and that's even with all the decades of research poured into it. I do think we need to try to get it into practical usage more though - hence my not-so-secret project :3
2
1
Brendan Zabarauskas
@brendanzab
Currently I'm working on core foundational stuff, trying to build a core language that can be relatively easily worked on/understood by compiler people (who might not know the type theory)
1