> I wouldn't say it's "extreme", it's very normal and natural. You just stick everything in the types and it works.
Ah, then I seem to be missing the point/intention. Thanks for illuminating that it should feel "natural". I think I need to spend more time with ML/Haskell families.
> ... the vast majority of the time you can construct your types in ways that force your logic to be correct because you just don't offer the ability to do the wrong thing
I think that is where I haven't had experience, nor much exposure to, when it comes to "static typing" in the true sense/intention of making a program correct. More so (which I think I loosely alluded to), is that the type system was being used to "model objects in the real world".
> what kind of logic errors are you seeing that you think wouldn't be eliminated by using types?
Classic "logic" stuff. Forgetting to modify and return a map given some other information. Accidentally returning the inverse of a boolean (i.e. !isSomething(x) vs isSomething(x)), incorrect adds or bit shifts, concurrent access to shared data structures (shared memory may be a more apt term), reconciling two different pieces of data into a shared one, algorithmic implementations (though I think you touched on this being less likely when using a type system designed to encourage correct algorithms by applying type theory, so it may be moot).
To maybe give some clarity to what I mean by correctness, I mean does the program match the expected behavior of the programmer. In playing around with F#, I've written buggy F#, but the types all matched up. I had a guarantee that my program would run in a non-faulty manner (bar any system fault), but the program was not correct.
> and found types to be very effective
I'm very curious where you've seen this be very effective (if you're able to share), and with what language/technology.
---
Also, as a last quip, I am enjoying learning about your perspective with type systems. There are some points you have brought up which have caused me to think harder and in more depth about the concept and it's application, and want to voice that I appreciate you putting in the time to have this exchange. Want to this up before I forget, since it is getting late in my neck of the woods.
> Classic "logic" stuff. Forgetting to modify and return a map given some other information. Accidentally returning the inverse of a boolean (i.e. !isSomething(x) vs isSomething(x)), incorrect adds or bit shifts
If something really is just a map or a boolean or an integer then you can't avoid this kind of thing. But usually it isn't, it's something meaningful in your domain, and then you can make and enforce the right distinctions. CachedResults is not the same as FullyPopulatedResults (and neither is just a Map); rather than x and a flag for whether x isSomething, how about an Either XThatIsSomething XThatIsNotSomething? Adds and bitshifts are a wide range of operations, and if you're doing deep numerical work then that's one place where I've found that existing type systems often can't keep up, but a lot of the time you're in a domain where you don't need to do that - e.g. if you only need to add values then you can use a type that wouldn't even allow you to subtract them (indeed most of the time I see people using integers they're opaque IDs that it never makes sense to do anything mathematical with - it would be nonsense to multiply a user ID by a permission group ID, so why expose them as integers?).
> I'm very curious where you've seen this be very effective (if you're able to share), and with what language/technology.
Various industries (finance, adtech, messaging), largely "backend" whether direct API backends or more batchy/offline "big data" processing, but also even web frontends. Mostly Scala.
> If something really is just a map or a boolean or an integer then you can't avoid this kind of thing. But usually it isn't,
No matter how much you abstract out and dress up a boolean, at its heart it's still a boolean value and I don't see how making a custom type based on boolean would prevent returning the inverse of a boolean value bug.
Most of the time a "boolean" isn't a boolean - it's a flag to indicate one of two different things, which is something you can represent more directly.
Ah, then I seem to be missing the point/intention. Thanks for illuminating that it should feel "natural". I think I need to spend more time with ML/Haskell families.
> ... the vast majority of the time you can construct your types in ways that force your logic to be correct because you just don't offer the ability to do the wrong thing
I think that is where I haven't had experience, nor much exposure to, when it comes to "static typing" in the true sense/intention of making a program correct. More so (which I think I loosely alluded to), is that the type system was being used to "model objects in the real world".
> what kind of logic errors are you seeing that you think wouldn't be eliminated by using types?
Classic "logic" stuff. Forgetting to modify and return a map given some other information. Accidentally returning the inverse of a boolean (i.e. !isSomething(x) vs isSomething(x)), incorrect adds or bit shifts, concurrent access to shared data structures (shared memory may be a more apt term), reconciling two different pieces of data into a shared one, algorithmic implementations (though I think you touched on this being less likely when using a type system designed to encourage correct algorithms by applying type theory, so it may be moot).
To maybe give some clarity to what I mean by correctness, I mean does the program match the expected behavior of the programmer. In playing around with F#, I've written buggy F#, but the types all matched up. I had a guarantee that my program would run in a non-faulty manner (bar any system fault), but the program was not correct.
> and found types to be very effective
I'm very curious where you've seen this be very effective (if you're able to share), and with what language/technology.
---
Also, as a last quip, I am enjoying learning about your perspective with type systems. There are some points you have brought up which have caused me to think harder and in more depth about the concept and it's application, and want to voice that I appreciate you putting in the time to have this exchange. Want to this up before I forget, since it is getting late in my neck of the woods.