[tialaramex]

I understand where you're coming from, but these terms seem fine to me:

This is exactly what, for example, Rust's str::parse method is for. The documentation gives the example:

    let four: u32 = "4".parse().unwrap();

You will so very often have text and want typed information, and parse is exactly how we do that transformation exactly once. Whereas validation is what it looks like when we try to make piecemeal checks later.

[lock1]

Coming from a more "average imperative" background like C and Java, outside of compiler or serde context, I don't think "parse" is a frequently used term there. The idea of "checking values to see whether they fulfill our expectations or not" is often called "validating" there.

So I believe the "Parse, Don't Validate" catchphrase means nothing, if not confusing, to most developers. "Does it mean this 'parse' operation doesn't 'validate' their input? How do you even perform 'validation' then?" is one of several questions that popped up in my head the first time I read the catchphrase prior to Haskell exposure.

Something like "Utilize your type system" probably makes much more sense for them. Then just show the difference between `ValidatedType validate(RawType)` vs `void RawType::validate() throws ParseError`.

[tialaramex]

The crucial design choice is that you can't get a Doodad by just saying oh, I'm sure this is a Doodad, I will validate later. You have to parse the thing you've got to get a Doodad if that's what you meant, and the parsing can fail because maybe it isn't one.

    let almost_pi: Rational = "22/7".parse().unwrap();

Here the example is my realistic::Rational. The actual Pi isn't a Rational number so we can't represent it, but 22 divided by 7 is a pretty good approximation considering.

I agree that many languages don't provide a nice API for this, but what I don't see (and maybe you have examples) is languages which do provide a nice API but call it validate. To me that naming would make no sense, but if you've got examples I'll look at them.

[whalesalad]

The point is parse and validate are interchangeable words for the most part. If you’re parsing something you expect to be an int, but it’s a float or the letter “a” is that not invalid? Is this assessment a form of validating expectations? The line between parsing and validating doesn’t exist.

[tialaramex]

But they plainly aren't interchangeable? Just asserting that it's true doesn't make it true.

[lock1]

That's true, but then again, don't forget the fact that words might get interpreted as different things by different people. Words like "arrow", "functor", or "validate" might get interpreted slightly differently even between people with the same background.

After all, the meaning of words is just a socially accepted meaning attached to a certain arrangement of symbols. The meaning can be whatever they want it to be. And even though each individual might interpret it slightly differently, as long as the interpretation is "compatible", communication between individuals is possible.

Arguably, it's more useful to distinguish between "parse" & "validate" and I agree with that. But based on my own experience and what I've observed when I'm trying to spread type-driven style, it looks like there's no difference in meaning between the words "parse" and "validate" for most developers. Trying to sell type-driven style via the "catchy catchphrase" "Parse, Don't Validate" will certainly backfire, confusing most people rather than making them appreciate the value of it.

In my opinion, it's not worth it to combat this "parse" & "validate" misconception for the sake of the catchphrase "Parse, Don't Validate". Why? Pure FP and type-driven style already put off most people because of the tendency to go with mathematical jargon. Why add even more unnecessary barriers when the core of it is just "utilize your type system"?

I agree with the point of the "Parse, Don't Validate" article, but I strongly dislike the "catchphrase" marketing part.

[whalesalad]

The fact that we are in disagreement here proves my point. If you pose this question to 10,000 developers, you will get mixed answers. This ambiguity is why I think the phrasing of this article (not the intent) is incorrect.