Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is NOT the same scenario where you get to design your types once and then EVERYTHING that ever touches those types is forced through a type checker. the author never claimed the types had to be designed only once, he claimed that schema evolution chosen by protobuf is inadequate for the purpose of lossless evolution. > Kenton has already provided a good explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4514059…
> type algebra either doesn't exist or impractical because only PL theorists know about it, not Kenton. Hi I'm Kenton. I, too, was enamored with advanced PL theory in college. Designed and implemented my own purely-functional programming language. Still wish someone would figure out a working version of dependent types for real-world use, mainly so we could prove array bounds-safety without runtime checks. In two dec…
I maintain a React app on the side, and a few other projects, and would still recommend it just due to developer availability, but there’s a saying among some of the Elm folks I know: “Good React code in 2025 looks like good Elm code from 2015.”
(To be fair: teams, and devs new to FP [myself included] will create complexity monstrosities in any paradigm, but Elm’s strong FP setup means huge subsets of those monstrosities won’t ever compile, and usually offer a clearer path for later cleanup.)