The Pain of Real Linear Types in Rust
gankro.github.io
The Pain of Real Linear Types in Rust
1–10 of 82 posts
Re: The Pain of Real Linear Types in Rust
#2Because it's not entirely clear from the title and introduction, this essay is actually arguing against extending Rust's type system to include linear types, rather than critiquing the type system as it currently exists (which people often colloquially describe as having "linear types" even if it technically doesn't).
EDIT: The intro has been updated to be clearer, so now I just look like an idiot. :)
Re: The Pain of Real Linear Types in Rust
#3> It's poorly named, and so are most of the concepts it introduces
Hostility towards academia check
Anyway it's fine not to have proper linear types in Rust, but I don't think linear types are the enemy here.
Re: The Pain of Real Linear Types in Rust
#4> It's poorly named, and so are most of the concepts it introduces Hostility towards academia check Anyway it's fine not to have proper linear types in Rust, but I don't think linear types are the enemy here.
Right or wrong, simply saying something is poorly named doesn't show that someone is hostile towards academia. By that standard, most of the academics I know would be hostile to academia, since they invariably think something in their field has a bad name.
Re: The Pain of Real Linear Types in Rust
#5As a Scala user: the further I've got into a functional/MLey style the more linear my code has become. Options or collections are very naturally handled with "fold" (cata). Loops probably shouldn't be infinite - if you're looping it's usually because you're folding along a data structure, and those ought to be finite (one of the ideas I'm toying with is a type-level natural indexed recursion-schemes like library, to make it easy to construct recursive structures that are known-finite).
I don't know if it's where Rust wants to be, but I want a practical-oriented ML-family language that does this.
Re: The Pain of Real Linear Types in Rust
#6CMU has a class on Substructural Logics https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~fp/courses/15816-f16/
Up until 2012 it was just about Linear Logic IIRC.
Re: The Pain of Real Linear Types in Rust
#7> It's poorly named, and so are most of the concepts it introduces Hostility towards academia check Anyway it's fine not to have proper linear types in Rust, but I don't think linear types are the enemy here.
Right or wrong, simply saying something is poorly named doesn't show that someone is hostile towards academia. By that standard, most of the academics I know would be hostile to academia, since they invariably think something in their field has a bad name.
Simply saying it is poorly named doesn't, but this sentence:
"Just so you can look this stuff up in The Literature, I'll be providing all these bad names with a Trademark of Disdain™, but otherwise I'd prefer to use Rust-centric terminology." pretty clearly does.
The TM thing is obnoxious.
Re: The Pain of Real Linear Types in Rust
#8> It's poorly named, and so are most of the concepts it introduces Hostility towards academia check Anyway it's fine not to have proper linear types in Rust, but I don't think linear types are the enemy here.
Gankro has a... distinctive writing style. :) He also has a master's in computer science, so if he actually has any enmity for academia it might very well be justified. :P
Re: The Pain of Real Linear Types in Rust
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right or wrong, simply saying something is poorly named doesn't show that someone is hostile towards academia. By that standard, most of the academics I know would be hostile to academia, since they invariably think something in their field has a bad name.
Simply saying it is poorly named doesn't, but this sentence: "Just so you can look this stuff up in The Literature, I'll be providing all these bad names with a Trademark of Disdain™, but otherwise I'd prefer to use Rust-centric terminology." pretty clearly does. The TM thing is obnoxious.
I think it's it hilarious (and true that academia often chooses poor names).
Re: The Pain of Real Linear Types in Rust
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right or wrong, simply saying something is poorly named doesn't show that someone is hostile towards academia. By that standard, most of the academics I know would be hostile to academia, since they invariably think something in their field has a bad name.
Simply saying it is poorly named doesn't, but this sentence: "Just so you can look this stuff up in The Literature, I'll be providing all these bad names with a Trademark of Disdain™, but otherwise I'd prefer to use Rust-centric terminology." pretty clearly does. The TM thing is obnoxious.
Yeah, it would be better with coloring. Or better yet hyperlinking to the relevant Wikipedia pages / papers / memes.
Edit: pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotency_of_entailment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonicity_of_entailment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_rule, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_guy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_logic, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_logic, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic (not sure why "Proper Support" is capitalized, that seems to have no referent)
Hyperlinks allow you to directly look up a term by clicking on it, i.e. are actually useful, whereas trademark symbols are just visual noise. Although of course it is possible to over-link as well, see e.g. the wiktionary FAQ on "wikifying": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Help:FAQ#Wikifying, in practice this doesn't seem to happen; it's more the reverse problem of not putting in enough links.