3 ms·
This is a surprising assessment given most of the blog post is explaining how to build the type system in a way it can give feedback on all _existing real proje
by josevalim 3y ago
This is a surprising assessment given most of the blog post is explaining how to build the type system in a way it can give feedback on all _existing real projects_ already written in Elixir. :)
It is the opposite of optimizing for type theorists and rather exploring how to bring values to the existing millions of lines of code.
Edit: I am the author.
- charcircuit 3y agoIt's about the way it is framed and that this is the main blog of the programming language, so the target demographic isn't people interested about how awesome a type theory based off of set theory is. My complaint was about the way the information was presented was in a way that I don't think properly motivates why this is being done and will be a good thing. For example the text about gradual typing should have been near the start to motivate why this was being done, but instead the blog post starts by trying to teach people the basics of using types + set theory.
- josevalim 3y agoIt is impossible to ignore the set theoretic type aspects, because the whole foundation of strong arrows is based on being able to negate a type. If I don't explain the set theory bits, then the rest of the article falls apart. I could perhaps rearrange some of those sections but that doesn't change my main argument: the type system is not being designed for type theoretic people. At best, you could say the _article_ focus too much on theory, rather than on the practical bits.