131–133 of 133 posts
Type inference has usability problems (2019): https://austinhenley.com/blog/typeinference.html
Too hard. I need to see the types:
((((3::Int)+(9::Int)::Int)+(15::Int)::Int)+(18::Int)::Int)+(5::Int)::Int
> My response? Go refactor your hideous code.
“I don’t want to infer types from my code. I’d rather infer the code from the types.” Ditto. The world where data and it’s type is the SSOT means you can trivially validate every bit of code that touches it.
I use type inference for this: the compiler looks at the existing types and then infers the type of the code I haven't yet written and tells me. I then write code based on the type given to me by the compiler.
This SOUNDS like “types are bad”. The author’s message (towards the end of the article) is “I don’t want to infer types from my code. I’d rather infer the code from the types. Types are the spec…” Yes. Always annotate types. Keep inference, it tells you when your annotations are inconsistent with tour code.
No, this sounds like:
* Type Inference Was a Mistake
* Type Inference Makes Code Less Readable
* Type Inference is a Footgun
* Type Inference Wastes Academic Effort
These are incompatible with:
> Keep inference