he/him 
I hate the phrase “this isn’t type-safe” when what it really means is “our type system is too restrictive, or not expressive enough”
Show this thread
-
From the other side, the conversation sounds like this: > "This function isn't type-safe, if you called it like (this), it would crash/corrupt data" < "Sure, but we don't call it that way right now, so there's no problem"
That's not exactly what my tweet meant. I'm referring to type system authors using the term "not type-safe" when they're actually referring to their own technical capabilities, rather than what would be technically possible
