Miss Dada 🏳️‍⚧️ on Twitter: "I definitely agree with you that we shouldn't rely too hard on tooling here. But ultimately tooling is a shortcut for looking up the definition of the method definition -- tools like ctags aren't exactly new. Macros will always make this be unsolvable in the general case… https://t.co/sEpjXdyMcF"

@sgrif

Joined November 2008

Country	Code	For customers of
United States	40404	(any)
Canada	21212	(any)
United Kingdom	86444	Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
Brazil	40404	Nextel, TIM
Haiti	40404	Digicel, Voila
Ireland	51210	Vodafone, O2
India	53000	Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
Indonesia	89887	AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
Italy	4880804	Wind
3424486444	Vodafone
» See SMS short codes for other countries

alexander payne‏ @myrrlyn May 4

Report Tweet
Report NetzDG Violation

alexander payne Retweeted Moxie Marlinspike

this whole thread has me like *distressed crab noises*https://twitter.com/moxie/status/1256640034054135808 …

alexander payne added,

Moxie MarlinspikeVerified account @moxie

For example, even simple features like "type inference" feel like misplaced priorities to me. People say "it's annoying I have to write String foo = new String()," but realistically, you're more often writing "String foo = bar.getBaz()" If that becomes "val foo = bar.getBaz()"

Show this thread

1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes

Show this thread

alexander payne‏ @myrrlyn May 4

Report Tweet
Report NetzDG Violation

alexander payne Retweeted Moxie Marlinspike

Rust gets away with so permissive a type-inference engine at binding sites precisely because it doesn't have this problem. all functions are fully specified in their signature, and since symbols in a scope can't collide, it's trivial to find the decl sitehttps://twitter.com/moxie/status/1256640035576623105 …

alexander payne added,

Moxie MarlinspikeVerified account @moxie

Languages designed for "writability" have function signatures that require you to press very few keys on the keyboard: "def foo(bar):" It's nice to press so few keys to write it, but error prone for the thousands of times people have to read/modify it.

Show this thread

3 replies 0 retweets 14 likes

Show this thread

Miss Dada ‏ @sgrif May 4

Report Tweet
Report NetzDG Violation

Replying to @myrrlyn

Not to mention your tools can show you the inferred type at any point if you feel you need to see it. It's not like type inference is the same thing as dynamically typed. The information is still there, and can be exposed if you need it.

1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes

thom‏ @at_tcsc May 4

Report Tweet
Report NetzDG Violation

Replying to @sgrif @myrrlyn

That does assume the tools can do this. Even Rust (which has the stated benefits) has trouble often, and I've never seen, say, a code review platform with this capability for any language.

2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes

Miss Dada ‏ @sgrif May 4

Report Tweet
Report NetzDG Violation

Replying to @at_tcsc @myrrlyn

rust-analyzer definitely does do this (which is admittedly a young technology). But this whole argument also assumes that the type of a variable is always (or even often) a useful thing to see, which I don't believe is the case.

2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes

Miss Dada ‏ @sgrif May 4

Report Tweet
Report NetzDG Violation

Replying to @sgrif @myrrlyn

If we assume it *is* for a second, the tradeoff here is "I need tooling to expose the type at the point where a variable is assigned" vs "I need tooling to help me change every call site if I change the return type of this function".

1 reply 0 retweets 1 like

Miss Dada ‏ @sgrif May 4

Report Tweet
Report NetzDG Violation

Replying to @sgrif @myrrlyn

The capabilities of something are typically much more important than the concrete type. Hell often the type is either unnameable or unreasonably difficult to name. Features like async/await are making this even more common.

1 reply 0 retweets 1 like

Miss Dada ‏ @sgrif May 4

Report Tweet
Report NetzDG Violation

Replying to @sgrif @myrrlyn

For code review -- why is the variable declaration site the place that we should force a type to be explicitly declared? It's just as likely for me to review a PR that adds `http://foo.do _thingy()`, why not force UFCS here for clarity?

1 reply 0 retweets 1 like

thom‏ @at_tcsc May 4

Report Tweet
Report NetzDG Violation

Replying to @sgrif @myrrlyn

My point wasn't so much that variables need to be declared at the point of use (I did say I didn't really agree with moxie here), but more that relying on tooling to solve these problems ignores the large class of situations where such tooling does not and likely never will exist

1 reply 0 retweets 1 like

Miss Dada ‏ @sgrif May 4

Report Tweet
Report NetzDG Violation

Replying to @at_tcsc @myrrlyn

I definitely agree with you that we shouldn't rely too hard on tooling here. But ultimately tooling is a shortcut for looking up the definition of the method definition -- tools like ctags aren't exactly new. Macros will always make this be unsolvable in the general case

11:19 AM - 4 May 2020

1 Like

0 replies 0 retweets 1 like

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.

Tweets

Miss Dada

@sgrif

Tweets

Loading seems to be taking a while.

false

Saved searches

Tweets

Miss Dada 🏳️‍⚧️

@sgrif

Tweets

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

Promote this Tweet

Block

Tweet with a location

Your lists

Create a new list

Copy link to Tweet

Embed this Tweet

Embed this Video

Preview

Why you're seeing this ad

Log in to Twitter

Sign up for Twitter

Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

Confirmation

Welcome home!

Tweets not working for you?

Say a lot with a little

Spread the word

Join the conversation

Learn the latest

Get more of what you love

Find what's happening

Never miss a Moment

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Promoted Tweet

false

Miss Dada