I wonder how much of making invalid states unrepresentable is really future-proofing?
Show this thread
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The issue I see is: the variability of what needs to be undone when requirements change. As an analogy, a hammer that is typed only to hit nails is likely over-specified.
"requirements change" is one of the most compelling reasons to use types. I won't use vague analogies to demonstrate this.
-
-
You kind of want to eliminate all of the ambiguity and uncertainty, right?
-
all I want is ambiguity and uncertainy specified
the ability to express what I'm sure of and what I'm unsure of. If I can express maximum of what I'm assuming as types, the type system can think for me across the entire codebase once assumptions no longer valid. - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.