|
|
|
|
|
|
by blacktriangle
1782 days ago
|
|
|
That was meant as a response to tsss apparently overvaluing his type checks. The pattern matching example is one that often comes up talking about typing. Yes it's great that the type checker finds all the places you didn't deal with your new sum type varient...except here's the rub. All that code was working just fine before. Your static type checker is forcing a bunch of code that never needed to know or care about certain values onto all places where you used pattern matching. I don't think this speaks to the value of static typing, I think it suggests that pattern matching is a bad idea that leads to overly coupled code where parts of the system that really shouldn't need to know about each other are now forced to deal with situations they don't care about. |
|
|
It's not "forcing" anything, you are evolving your program and the compiler is helping you not play a whack-a-mole by actually telling you every place that must be corrected in order to account for the change.
Wasn't aware that evolving a project is called forcing. :P
> I think it suggests that pattern matching is a bad idea that leads to overly coupled code where parts of the system that really shouldn't need to know about each other are now forced to deal with situations they don't care about.
That's a super random statement, dude. If a sum type change makes 7 places in your code not compile then obviously those pieces of code do care about it -- you wouldn't write it that way if it didn't. Nobody put a gun on your head forcing you to include the sum type in these places in the code just because, right?
Overall I am not following your train of thought. You seem to be negatively biased. I've seen from my practice only benefits by enforcing exhaustive pattern matching. Many times I facepalmed after I got a compiler error in Rust and was saying "gods, I absolutely would've missed that if I wrote it in a dynamic language".