4 ms·

Result covers the very common case where there is T or error but never both. Having a decent type system doesn't prevent you from returning both. In Go I simply

by awused 3y ago

Result covers the very common case where there is T or error but never both. Having a decent type system doesn't prevent you from returning both. In Go I simply cannot have something as simple as "A or B, but never both or neither" as a type. >However, Go believes you cannot make that assumption. This is trying to twist a weakness of Go's type system as a virtue. In Go I always have "A or B, including neither and both". I can have that in Rust or Haskell if I want, but usually I want "A or B, never both or neither" and rarely "A or B, sometimes both but never neither" which Rust and Haskell can do but Go cannot. This comes from Go using product types as a poor replacement for sum types.

randomdata 3y ago
> This is trying to twist a weakness of Go's type system as a virtue. No. There is no discussion about type systems taking place here at all. The discussion is about patterns where the producer or the consumer is in control. Specifically, Result puts the producer in control. Idiomatic Go (T, error) sees the consumer in control. There is likely no language in existence that prevents you from choosing. You can write code where the producer is in control in Go, and you can write code where the consumer is in control in every other. These are not features of a language, although language idioms do often push developers one way or the other.
- awused 3y ago
  This entire discussion is about the type system and how it interacts with the language. Go does not have sum types, so the producer cannot signal to the consumer what it can produce and what the consumer has to handle. The consumer in Go must pessimistically assume the all combinations of return values are possible, where in a language with a decent type system the possible cases can be enumerated and handled appropriately. >Idiomatic Go sees the caller in control. This is simply not true. If the producer never returns A+B, then the consumer is never going to magic that into existence. The producer is always in control of what the producer returns. >Specifically, Result puts the producer in control. Result is just a convenience type for the very common case of a function returning "A or B, but never both or neither." If your producer does not match that, you are not forced by the language to use Result. In Go, you are always forced by the language to return a value of type "A or B, including both or neither." The consumer isn't any more in control, it just has to guess whether "both or neither" are possible return types. In Rust/Haskell/Ocaml/Java, hell even C++ with variant or C with union, I can return something or with a more restrictive type. Honestly Go is uniquely incapable of representing these cases in its type system and control flow.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > This entire discussion is about the type system and how it interacts with the language. No. The discussion opened to say that Result is better than the pattern used in Go. In other words, dependent state is better than independent state. I said that dependent state puts the producer in control, while independent state puts the consumer in control and that there are pluses and minuses to each approach, with neither being better, just different tradeoffs. We continued to discuss that control and how Result, exceptions, and the (T, error) pattern play into that. Somewhere in the middle was a regularly scheduled Rust advertisement, but following that returned to the same topic. A topic that is not, and never has been, about type systems. And it isn't even about any particular programming language, even if Go was used to call out a pattern that the original commenter didn't have a better name for. > If your producer does not match that, you are not forced by the language to use Result. So, in other words: Dependent state puts the producer in control, while independent state puts the consumer in control and that there are pluses and minuses to each approach, with neither being better, just different tradeoffs...? It is curious how the word Go causes minds to shut down.
    - awused 3y ago
      >The discussion opened to say that Result is better than the pattern used in Go You are trying to paint a false dichotomy between Rust's Result<T, error> and Go's (T, error). In reality the dichotomy is between sum types (which Result is a very simple case of) and languages without sum types, of which Go is one of a very small set. The key difference is that Result is available as an option in Rust/Haskell/Ocaml/etc, and I'm free to not use Result if it's not the right fit, where in Go the only option is to use a product type. Result<A,B> and the ? operator are shortcuts for concisely handling the very common case of handling "A or B, but never both or neither." If your producer doesn't fit that, you're free to define your own sum type. In Go, you are simply unable to represent these and must cover all four cases (or eight, or sixteen, or thirty-two, etc, as the function grows in complexity). Nothing I'm saying is specific to Rust either, despite your appealing to conspiracies, and Rust's ideas are not new, not by decades. Haskell, Ocaml, Java, C++, typescript, etc, (even C with a bit of squinting) all have basic sum types and can encode "A or B, but never both or neither" and "A or B or both, but never neither" in their type systems and control flow in a way that Go cannot. Rust didn't pioneer the idea of a basic sum types, Go is just uniquely (among popular statically types languages from the last 50 years) incapable of representing them. >So, in other words: Dependent state puts the producer in control, while independent state puts the consumer in control and that there are pluses and minuses to each approach, with neither being better, just different tradeoffs...? No, this is complete nonsense. In Go, if I never write "return nonNilFile, nonNilError", the consumer cannot magic that into existence. Your entire position about languages being consumer controlled vs producer controlled is entirely nonsense. Consumers cannot rewrite the code of the functions they call.

by awused 3y ago

randomdata 3y ago

> This is trying to twist a weakness of Go's type system as a virtue. No. There is no discussion about type systems taking place here at all. The discussion is about patterns where the producer or the consumer is in control. Specifically, Result puts the producer in control. Idiomatic Go (T, error) sees the consumer in control. There is likely no language in existence that prevents you from choosing. You can write code where the producer is in control in Go, and you can write code where the consumer is in control in every other. These are not features of a language, although language idioms do often push developers one way or the other.

awused 3y ago
This entire discussion is about the type system and how it interacts with the language. Go does not have sum types, so the producer cannot signal to the consumer what it can produce and what the consumer has to handle. The consumer in Go must pessimistically assume the all combinations of return values are possible, where in a language with a decent type system the possible cases can be enumerated and handled appropriately. >Idiomatic Go sees the caller in control. This is simply not true. If the producer never returns A+B, then the consumer is never going to magic that into existence. The producer is always in control of what the producer returns. >Specifically, Result puts the producer in control. Result is just a convenience type for the very common case of a function returning "A or B, but never both or neither." If your producer does not match that, you are not forced by the language to use Result. In Go, you are always forced by the language to return a value of type "A or B, including both or neither." The consumer isn't any more in control, it just has to guess whether "both or neither" are possible return types. In Rust/Haskell/Ocaml/Java, hell even C++ with variant or C with union, I can return something or with a more restrictive type. Honestly Go is uniquely incapable of representing these cases in its type system and control flow.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > This entire discussion is about the type system and how it interacts with the language. No. The discussion opened to say that Result is better than the pattern used in Go. In other words, dependent state is better than independent state. I said that dependent state puts the producer in control, while independent state puts the consumer in control and that there are pluses and minuses to each approach, with neither being better, just different tradeoffs. We continued to discuss that control and how Result, exceptions, and the (T, error) pattern play into that. Somewhere in the middle was a regularly scheduled Rust advertisement, but following that returned to the same topic. A topic that is not, and never has been, about type systems. And it isn't even about any particular programming language, even if Go was used to call out a pattern that the original commenter didn't have a better name for. > If your producer does not match that, you are not forced by the language to use Result. So, in other words: Dependent state puts the producer in control, while independent state puts the consumer in control and that there are pluses and minuses to each approach, with neither being better, just different tradeoffs...? It is curious how the word Go causes minds to shut down.
  - awused 3y ago
    >The discussion opened to say that Result is better than the pattern used in Go You are trying to paint a false dichotomy between Rust's Result<T, error> and Go's (T, error). In reality the dichotomy is between sum types (which Result is a very simple case of) and languages without sum types, of which Go is one of a very small set. The key difference is that Result is available as an option in Rust/Haskell/Ocaml/etc, and I'm free to not use Result if it's not the right fit, where in Go the only option is to use a product type. Result<A,B> and the ? operator are shortcuts for concisely handling the very common case of handling "A or B, but never both or neither." If your producer doesn't fit that, you're free to define your own sum type. In Go, you are simply unable to represent these and must cover all four cases (or eight, or sixteen, or thirty-two, etc, as the function grows in complexity). Nothing I'm saying is specific to Rust either, despite your appealing to conspiracies, and Rust's ideas are not new, not by decades. Haskell, Ocaml, Java, C++, typescript, etc, (even C with a bit of squinting) all have basic sum types and can encode "A or B, but never both or neither" and "A or B or both, but never neither" in their type systems and control flow in a way that Go cannot. Rust didn't pioneer the idea of a basic sum types, Go is just uniquely (among popular statically types languages from the last 50 years) incapable of representing them. >So, in other words: Dependent state puts the producer in control, while independent state puts the consumer in control and that there are pluses and minuses to each approach, with neither being better, just different tradeoffs...? No, this is complete nonsense. In Go, if I never write "return nonNilFile, nonNilError", the consumer cannot magic that into existence. Your entire position about languages being consumer controlled vs producer controlled is entirely nonsense. Consumers cannot rewrite the code of the functions they call.