3 ms·

Types are the best form of documentation because they can be used to automatically check for user error, are integral to the code itself, and can provide inline

Types are the best form of documentation because they can be used to automatically check for user error, are integral to the code itself, and can provide inline documentation. The more I program in dynamically typed (or even weakly statically typed) languages the more I come to this conclusion.

einpoklum 2y ago
You're not wrong, but if your code is full of bespoke types that are only relevant to a couple of places where they're used, you hurt interoperability; you lock yourself in to how things are done now; and you may just be shifting the burden of making sense to someplace else in the code. If you are able to formulate types which can be grasped without reading and re-reading their code - that's a win; and if you are able to express more of your code in terms of more generic non-trivial types and data structures, which are language-idiomatic - then that's a double win, because you're likely to be able to apply library functions directly, write less code, and have your code readers thinking "Oh, variadix is just doing FOO on the BAR structure, I know what that means".
- callc 2y ago
  > if your code is full of bespoke types that are only relevant to a couple of places where they're used, you hurt interoperability; you lock yourself in to how things are done now; and you may just be shifting the burden of making sense to someplace else in the code What is an example of bespoke types? Is is all compound types (structs, classes)? If you need interop or extensibility, make an API. Feel free to use whatever types in your library you want, just make sure to agree to the API interface. I’m honestly not sure what style of programming you are advocating for einpoklum. Can you provide an example? All non-primitive types are essentially n-ary trees of types of sub-members (ignoring unions) with primitive types as leaves. Passing your non-primitive type so some external library function is accomplished by the library declaring that the type it receives must adhere to an interface.
  - einpoklum 2y ago
    > Is is all compound types (structs, classes)? Well, plain-old-data structs are not something I would call bespoke types. Classes for which you write code, I suppose. > All non-primitive types are essentially If you only use plain structs, then maybe.
- hinkley 2y ago
  > types that are only relevant to a couple of places do not create architectural lock-in. Friction in type declaration comes from too many cooks in the kitchen. If only two chunks of code see a type, just change it.

einpoklum 2y ago

You're not wrong, but if your code is full of bespoke types that are only relevant to a couple of places where they're used, you hurt interoperability; you lock yourself in to how things are done now; and you may just be shifting the burden of making sense to someplace else in the code. If you are able to formulate types which can be grasped without reading and re-reading their code - that's a win; and if you are able to express more of your code in terms of more generic non-trivial types and data structures, which are language-idiomatic - then that's a double win, because you're likely to be able to apply library functions directly, write less code, and have your code readers thinking "Oh, variadix is just doing FOO on the BAR structure, I know what that means".

callc 2y ago
> if your code is full of bespoke types that are only relevant to a couple of places where they're used, you hurt interoperability; you lock yourself in to how things are done now; and you may just be shifting the burden of making sense to someplace else in the code What is an example of bespoke types? Is is all compound types (structs, classes)? If you need interop or extensibility, make an API. Feel free to use whatever types in your library you want, just make sure to agree to the API interface. I’m honestly not sure what style of programming you are advocating for einpoklum. Can you provide an example? All non-primitive types are essentially n-ary trees of types of sub-members (ignoring unions) with primitive types as leaves. Passing your non-primitive type so some external library function is accomplished by the library declaring that the type it receives must adhere to an interface.
- einpoklum 2y ago
  > Is is all compound types (structs, classes)? Well, plain-old-data structs are not something I would call bespoke types. Classes for which you write code, I suppose. > All non-primitive types are essentially If you only use plain structs, then maybe.
hinkley 2y ago
> types that are only relevant to a couple of places do not create architectural lock-in. Friction in type declaration comes from too many cooks in the kitchen. If only two chunks of code see a type, just change it.