Comment by tialaramex
11 hours ago
I like to think about how many problems a feature solves to judge whether it's "worth it". I believe that the Sum types solve enough different problems that they're worth it, whereas nullability solves only one problem (the C-style or Java-style null object) the Sum types can solve that with Option<T> and also provide error handling with Result<T, Err> and control flow with ControlFlow<Continue, Break> among others so that's already a better deal.
Nullability is a good retro-fit, like Java's type erased generics, or the DSL technology to cram a reasonable short-distance network protocol onto the existing copper lines for telephones. But in the same way that you probably wouldn't start with type erased generics, or build a new city with copper telephone cables, nullability isn't worth it for a new language IMO.
I'm an advocate for "both".
- `Option<T>` and `Result<T,E>` at core;
- `?T` and `T!E` as type declaration syntax that desugars to them;
- and `.?` and `.!` operators so chains like `foo()?.bar()!.baz()` can be written and all the relevant possible return branches are inserted without a fuss.
Having `Option` and `Result` be simply normal types (and not special-casing "nullable") has benefits that are... obvious, I'd say. They're just _normal_. Not being special cases is great. Then, having syntactic sugars to make the very, _very_ common cases be easy to describe is just a huge win that makes correct typing more accessible to many more people by simply minimizing keystrokes.
The type declaration sugar is perhaps merely nice to have, but I think it really does change the way the average programmer is willing to write. The chaining operators, though... I would say I borderline can't live without those, anymore.
Chaining operators can change the SLOC count of some functions by as much as... say, 75%, if we consider a language like Go with it's infamous "if err not nil" clause that is mandated to spread across three lines.
Erased generics give parametricity, which most PL people think is fairly important. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametricity or https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/1617/L28/parametricity.pdf
I mean, yeah, type erasure does give parametricity, but, you can instead design your language so that you monomorphize but insist on parametricity anyway. If you write stable Rust your implementations get monomorphized but you aren't allowed to specialize them - the stable language doesn't provide a way to write two distinct versions of the polymorphic function.
And if you only regard parametricity as valuable rather than essential then you can choose to relax that and say OK, you're allowed to specialize but if you do then you're no longer parametric and the resulting lovely consequences go away, leaving it to the programmers to decide whether parametricity is worth it here.
I don't understand your first paragraph. Monomorphization and parametricity are not in conflict; the compiler has access to information that the language may hide from the programmer. As an existance proof, MLTon monomorphizes arrays while Standard ML is very definitely parametric: http://www.mlton.org/Features
I agree that maintaining parametricity or not is a design decision. However, recent languages that break it (e.g. Zig) don't seem to understand what they're doing in this regard. At least I've never seen a design justification for this, but I have seen criticism of their approach. Given that type classes and their ilk (implicit parameters; modular implicits) give the benefits of ad-hoc polymorphism while mantaining parametricity, and are well established enough to the point that Java is considering adding them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz7Or9C0TpM), I don't see any compelling reason to drop parametricity.
1 reply →