Type Inference Was a Mistake
borretti.me
Type Inference Was a Mistake
1–10 of 133 posts
Re: Type Inference Was a Mistake
#2Sometimes you'll read something and think "I'm not taking the bait".
Re: Type Inference Was a Mistake
#3Sometimes you'll read something and think "I'm not taking the bait".
It's not even factual.
> In Rust and Haskell you have to at least annotate the parameter types and return type of functions. Type inference is only for variable bindings inside the function body.
This is false for Haskell. Can't speak for Rust.
Re: Type Inference Was a Mistake
#4> In Rust and Haskell you have to at least annotate the parameter types and return type of functions.
In Rust you do, but in Haskell you don't.
Re: Type Inference Was a Mistake
#5Sometimes you'll read something and think "I'm not taking the bait".
>> Sometimes you'll read something and think "I'm not taking the bait".
Like when I read about "auto" in C++. It still bugs me when I see it...
Re: Type Inference Was a Mistake
#6Sometimes you'll read something and think "I'm not taking the bait".
It's not even factual. > In Rust and Haskell you have to at least annotate the parameter types and return type of functions. Type inference is only for variable bindings inside the function body. This is false for Haskell. Can't speak for Rust.
[deleted]
Re: Type Inference Was a Mistake
#7The type is an overlay away. When you need it you can read it. When you know it you can hide it to leave more space for the code. What's the matter??
Re: Type Inference Was a Mistake
#8Sometimes you'll read something and think "I'm not taking the bait".
It's not even factual. > In Rust and Haskell you have to at least annotate the parameter types and return type of functions. Type inference is only for variable bindings inside the function body. This is false for Haskell. Can't speak for Rust.
Rust does require explicitly writing out the signature of top-level functions.
I believe it was a conscious decision to limit de cascading of type errors from global type inference, the base algorithm was capable of it.
Re: Type Inference Was a Mistake
#9This 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.
Re: Type Inference Was a Mistake
#10> In Rust and Haskell you have to at least annotate the parameter types and return type of functions. In Rust you do, but in Haskell you don't.
What about when writing a function with polymorphic recursion, rank-N types, or the monomorphism restriction?
There are plenty of examples where a type declaration is required to get functionality, especially when we consider what GHC offers as being "Haskell".
I agree the author could be more clear about this—that Haskell and GHC only sometimes require type annotations in certain circumstances.