> Unpopular opinion: co/contravariant representations represent exactly the point at which formal typesafety starts hurting instead of helping as an engineering

> Unpopular opinion: co/contravariant representations represent exactly the point at which formal typesafety starts hurting instead of helping as an engineering practice. Type safety? It's a way to maintain soundness. Covariance and contravariance expands the amount of valid programs you can write within a language while maintaining soundness. It's fundamentally important if you want to reason about programs and make claims about the validity of programs. > your project would have been better served by an environment that just let you do trick with runtime validation Are you talking about dynamic programming? Trick with runtime validation? Are you talking about Java and C# runtime failures for their object arrays before generics? What do you exactly mean by trick? > The resulting code is cleaner, simpler, easier to maintain and more straightforward to evolve than the "correct" madness that results from proper functional analysis. So you'd rather have cleaner, simpler programs that are incorrect? You don't care about soundness? Or are you saying that removing co and contravariance in a language is a valid trade off even if it limits the set of valid programs within a language? It's not exactly clear what you are saying.