> Can't we extend this argument to eliminating basically all static typing?
No, because static typing exists in all sorts of places. This argument is primarily about cases where you're exchanging data, which is a very specific use case.
No, because static typing exists in all sorts of places. This argument is primarily about cases where you're exchanging data, which is a very specific use case.
Static type systems in programming languages are designed to break at compilation-time. The reason this works is because all users are within the same “program unit”, on the same version.
In other words, static typing allows more validation to be automated, and removes the need for multiple simultaneous versions, but assumes that the developer has access and ability to change all other users at the same “time” of their own change.
I find this whole topic fascinating. It seems like programmers are limited to an implicit understanding of these differences but it’s never formalized (or even properly conceptualized). Thus, our intuition often fails with complex systems (eg multiple simultaneous versions, etc). Case in point: even mighty Google distinguished engineers made this “billion-dollar mistake” with required fields, even though they had near-perfect up-front knowledge of their planned use-cases.
The whole lesson is that you can’t apply the lessons from static type systems in PLs when you have multiple versions and fragmented validation across different subsystems. Counter-intuitively! Everyone thought it was a good idea, and it turned out to be a disaster.
Why are we not having this debate about "everything must be optional" for Internet Packets (IP) for example? Because it's just binary load. If you want to ensure integrity you checksum the binary load.
the bigger challenge with proto3 is that people use it both for rpc and storage, in some cases directly serializing rpc payloads. Disregarding how awful a choice that is, you likely want to trade off flexible deserialization of old data at the expense of rigidity, and conformance.
I'm not rejecting static types entirely, and yes I was discussing exchanging data here, as Alan Kay's OOP is inherently distributed. It's much closer to Erlang than it is to Java.
OK I guess I'm having a hard time reconciling that with:
> basically all static typing
1. Type info which is available before runtime, but not at runtime (compiled away).
2. Type info which is available at runtime, but not at compile time (input, statistics, etc.).
3. Type info which is available both at compile time and runtime (say like a Java class).
When you have a JIT optimizer that can turn [3] and [2] into [1], there's no longer a reason to have [1], except if you're micro-optimizing embedded code for some device with 64kb RAM or whatever. We've carried through legacy practices, and we don't even question them, and try to push them way out of their league into large-scale distributed software.
When I say we don't need [1], this doesn't mean I deny [3], which is still statically analyzable type information. It's static types, but without throwing away flexibility and data at runtime, that doesn't need to be thrown away.
> there's no longer a reason to have [1]
I guess if you're assuming the value of static types is just performance? But it's not, not by a long shot - hence 'mypy', a static typechecker that in no way impacts runtime.
I think this conversation is a bit too confusing for me so I'm gonna respectfully walk away :)
From the linked article the post: "The right answer is for applications to do validation as-needed in application-level code. If you want to detect when a client fails to set a particular field, give the field an invalid default value and then check for that value on the server. Low-level infrastructure that doesn’t care about message content should not validate it at all."
(I agree that "static typing" isn't exactly the right term here. But protobuf dynamic validation allows the programmer to then rely on static types, vs having to dynamically check those properties with hand-written code, so I can see why someone might use that term.)