6 ms·

As a general rule, I am all for defining specific aliases of fundamental types, type-safely if possible. I don't think this changes my argument materially, thou

As a general rule, I am all for defining specific aliases of fundamental types, type-safely if possible. I don't think this changes my argument materially, though. Real world applications of programming always come down to processing data of known, concrete types at some point. And at that point, all the power you get from saying things like there's only one possible implementation of a function f :: a -> a immediately go out of the window, because you don't have a value of type a, you have a value of type SomeConcreteTypeThatIKnowThingsAbout. In my experience, though of course yours may differ, there are very often still many plausibly correct implementations of functions working with those types and many ways to combine them that might make sense and that would satisfy the type checker. The idea that specifying the types alone is a viable substitute for proper documentation of the real meaning of the functions just falls apart at that point.

codygman 6y ago
> And at that point, all the power you get from saying things like there's only one possible implementation of a function f :: a -> a immediately go out of the window, because you don't have a value of type a, you have a value of type SomeConcreteTypeThatIKnowThingsAbout. Not if your logic is primarily in terms of domain types, invariants encoded in those domain types as is necessary and economical. > And at that point, all the power you get from saying things like there's only one possible implementation of a function f :: a -> a immediately go out of the window, because you don't have a value of type a, you have a value of type SomeConcreteTypeThatIKnowThingsAbout. Can you give an example? I can only see this being the case if your logic is done at the concrete type level.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  I wonder if we're talking at cross-purposes here. While it is certainly useful to write abstractions of common algorithms and access patterns for data structures generically, any useful program ultimately has to deal with data of known types. Those might come from the domain model, or they might be implementation tools like file handles or database queries, but they are something specific, some concrete type that is relevant to the problem at hand.

codygman 6y ago

> And at that point, all the power you get from saying things like there's only one possible implementation of a function f :: a -> a immediately go out of the window, because you don't have a value of type a, you have a value of type SomeConcreteTypeThatIKnowThingsAbout. Not if your logic is primarily in terms of domain types, invariants encoded in those domain types as is necessary and economical. > And at that point, all the power you get from saying things like there's only one possible implementation of a function f :: a -> a immediately go out of the window, because you don't have a value of type a, you have a value of type SomeConcreteTypeThatIKnowThingsAbout. Can you give an example? I can only see this being the case if your logic is done at the concrete type level.

Silhouette 6y ago
I wonder if we're talking at cross-purposes here. While it is certainly useful to write abstractions of common algorithms and access patterns for data structures generically, any useful program ultimately has to deal with data of known types. Those might come from the domain model, or they might be implementation tools like file handles or database queries, but they are something specific, some concrete type that is relevant to the problem at hand.