Bits get lost, if you don’t have protocol verification you get mismatched types.

Types naively used can fall apart pretty easily. Suppose you have some data being sent in three chunks. Suppose you get chunk 1 and chunk 3 but chunk 2 arrives corrupted for whatever reason. What do you do? Do you reject the entire object since it doesn’t conform to the type spec? Maybe you do, maybe you don’t, or maybe you structure the type around it to handle that.

But let’s dissect that last suggestion; suppose I do modify the type to encode that. Suddenly pretty much every field more or less just because Maybe/Optional. Once everything is Optional, you don’t really have a “type” anymore, you have a a runtime check of the type everywhere. This isn’t radically different than regular dynamic typing.

There are more elaborate type systems that do encode these things better like session types, and I should clarify that I don’t think that those get in the way. I just think that stuff like the C type system or HM type systems stop being useful, because these type systems don’t have the best way to encode the non-determinism of distributed stuff.

You can of course ameliorate this somewhat with higher level protocols like HTTP, and once you get to that level types do map pretty well and you should use them. I just have mixed feelings for low-level network stuff.

▲

eyelidlessness 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> But let’s dissect that last suggestion; suppose I do modify the type to encode that. Suddenly pretty much every field more or less just because Maybe/Optional. Once everything is Optional, you don’t really have a “type” anymore, you have a a runtime check of the type everywhere. This isn’t radically different than regular dynamic typing.

Of course it’s different. You have a type that accurately reflects your domain/data model. Doing that helps to ensure you know to implement the necessary runtime checks, correctly. It can also help you avoid implementing a lot of superfluous runtime checks for conditions you don’t expect to handle (and to treat those conditions as invariant violations instead).

▲

tombert 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No, it really isn’t that different. If I had a dynamic type system I would have to null check everything. If I have declare everything as a Maybe, I would have to null check everything.

For things that are invariants, that’s also trivial to check against with `if(!isValid(obj)) throw Error`.

▲

dwb an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Sure. The difference is that with a strong typing system, the compiler makes sure you write those checks. I know you know this, but that’s the confusion in this thread. For me too, I find static type systems give a lot more assurance in this way. Of course it breaks down if you assume the wrong type for the data coming in, but that’s unavoidable. At least you can contain the problem and ensure good error reports.

▲

the-grump 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You missed the entire point of the strong static typing.

▲

tombert 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t think I did. I am one of the very few people who have had paying jobs doing Scala, Haskell, and F#. I have also had paying jobs doing Clojure and Erlang: dynamic languages commonly used for distributed apps.

I like HM type systems a lot. I’ve given talks on type systems, I was working on trying to extend type systems to deal with these particular problems in grad school. This isn’t meant to a statements on types entirely. I am arguing that most systems don’t encode for a lot of uncertainty that you find when going over the network.

▲

the-grump 2 hours ago | parent [-]

With all due respect, you can use all of those languages and their type systems without recognizing their value.

For ensuring bits don't get lost, you use protocols like TCP. For ensuring they don't silently flip on you, you use ECC.

Complaining that static types don't guard you against lost packets and bit flips is missing the point.

▲

tombert an hour ago | parent [-]

With all due respect, you really do not understand these protocols if you think “just use TCP and ECC” addresses my complaints.

Again, it’s not that I have an issue with static types “not protecting you”, I am saying that you have to encode for this uncertainty regardless of the language you use. The way you typically encode for that uncertainty is to use an algebraic data type like Maybe or Optional. Checking against a Maybe for every field ends up being the same checks you would be doing with a dynamic language.

I don’t really feel the need to list out my full resume, but I do think it is very likely that I understand type systems better than you do.

	▲	folex 12 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> ends up being the same checks you would be doing with a dynamic language Sure thing. Unless dev forgets to do (some of) these checks, or some code downstream changes and upstream checks become gibberish or insufficient.
	▲	the-grump an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Fair enough, though I feel so entirely differently that your position baffles me. Gleam is still new to me, but my experience writing parsers in Haskell and handling error cases succinctly through functors was such a pleasant departure from my experiences in languages that lack typeclasses, higher-kinded types, and the abstractions they allow. The program flowed happily through my Eithers until it encountered an error, at which point that was raised with a nice summary. Part of that was GHC extensions though they could easily be translated into boilerplate, and that only had to be done once per class. Gleam will likely never live to that level of programmer joy; what excites me is that it’s trying to bring some of it to BEAM. It’s more than likely your knowledge of type systems far exceeds mine—I’m frankly not the theory type. My love for them comes from having written code both ways, in C, Python, Lisp, and Haskell. Haskell’s types were such a boon, and it’s not the HM inference at all.