The blog linked in the GP anticipates this rebuttal and already addresses it.
Your argument also implies that things like `slice[i]` are never okay.
Your argument also implies that things like `slice[i]` are never okay.
The blog post doesn’t address the issue, it simply pretends it’s not a real problem.
Also from the post: “If we were to steelman advocates in favor of this style of coding, then I think the argument is probably best limited to certain high reliability domains. I personally don’t have a ton of experience in said domains …”
Enough said.
> The blog post doesn’t address the issue, it simply pretends it’s not a real problem.
It very explicitly addresses it! It even gives real examples.
> Also from the post: “If we were to steelman advocates in favor of this style of coding, then I think the argument is probably best limited to certain high reliability domains. I personally don’t have a ton of experience in said domains …” > > Enough said.
Ad hominem... I don't have experience working on, e.g., medical devices upon which someone's life depends. So the point of that sentence is to say, "yes, I acknowledge this advice may not apply there." You also cherry picked that quote and left off the context, which is relevant here.
And note that you said:
> I have to disagree that unwrap is ever OK.
That's an extreme position. It isn't caveated to only apply to certain contexts.
It's not orthogonal. `Result` isn't a local invariant, and yes, `.unwrap()` does require lying. If your code depends on an API that can fail, and you cannot handle that failure locally (`.unwrap()` is not handling it), then your type signature needs to express that you can fail -- and you need to raise an error on that failure.
> That's an extreme position. It isn't caveated to only apply to certain contexts.
No, it's a principled position. Correct code doesn't `.unwrap()`, but code that hides failure cases -- or foists invariant enforcement onto programmers remembering not to screw up -- does.
I've built and worked on ridiculously complex code bases without a single instance of `.unwrap()` or the local language equivalent; it's just not necessary. This is just liked the unchecked exception debate in Java -- complex explanations for a very simple goal of avoiding the thought, time, and effort to accurately model a system's invariants.
I don't think you understand what an internal runtime invariant is. Either way, I don't know of any widespread libraries (in any language) that follow this "principled" position. That makes it de facto extreme.
> I've built and worked on ridiculously complex code bases without a single instance of `.unwrap()` or the local language equivalent; it's just not necessary.
Show me. If you're using `slice[i]`, then you're using `unwrap()`. It introduces a panicking branch.
> If your code depends on an API that can fail, and you cannot handle that failure locally (`.unwrap()` is not handling it), then your type signature needs to express that you can fail -- and you need to raise an error on that failure.
You use `unwrap()` when you know the failure cannot happen.
I note you haven't engaged with any of the examples I provided in the blog.
That’s an invariant meant to be expressed by your type system — and it is.
You’ve failed to model your invariants in your API — and thus the type system — if you ever reach a point where an engineer has to manually assess and assert whether “cannot” applies.
You will get it wrong. That is bad code.