[cle]

> instead of using them implicitly from the context, without documentation and static typing

This is exactly what context is trying to avoid, and makes a tradeoff to that end. There's often intermediate business logic that shouldn't need to know anything about logging or metrics collection or the authn session. So we stuff things into an opaque object, whether it's a map, a dict, a magic DI container, "thread local storage", or whatever. It's a technique as old as programming.

There's nothing preventing you from providing well-typed and documented accessors for the things you put into a context. The context docs themselves recommend it and provide examples.

If you disagree that this is even a tradeoff worth making, then there's not really a discussion to be had about how to make it.

[vbezhenar]

I disagree that it's a good approach. I think that parameters must be passed down always, as parameters. It allows compiler to detect unused parameters and it removes all implicitness.

It is verbose indeed and may be there should be programming language support to reduce that verbosity. Some languages support implicit parameters which proved to be problematic but may be there should be more iterations on that manner.

I consider context for passing down values to do more harm than good.

[cle]

It's nothing to do with verbosity, which is why I didn't mention it.