On: Leaving Haskell behind

[consilient]

> But code written from scratch doesn't have that issue. I'd be interested in a counterexample -- is there a code snippet that passes the strict mode of the compiler, and doesn't interoperate with untyped code, but produces an unexpected runtime error?

You'd think so, right? But no, typescript is deliberately unsound in ways that have nothing to do with gradual typing. Here are a few examples.

Signatures written in method syntax are bivariant, which is not correct

    interface Unsound {
      f(x: number | string): number
    }
    interface Unsound2 {
      f(x: number): number
    }
    const a: Unsound2 = { f: (x: number) => x }
    const b: Unsound = a
    const c: number = b.f("not a number")

Type predicate results survive mutation

    const hasA = (x: object): x is { a: unknown } => "a" in x
    const deleteA = (x: { a: unknown }) => {
      delete x.a
    }
    const unsound = (x: object) => {
      if (hasA(x)) {
        deleteA(x)
        return x.a
      } else {
        return "no a"
      }
    }

Many stdlib types are incorrect. JSON stuff is particularly bad: JSON.parse and Body.json() both return `any`.

You can spread things that aren't objects

    const unsound = <X,Y>(x: X, y: Y): X & Y => ({...x, ...y})
    const bad: never = unsound(5, 4)

(And even for objects, `X & Y` is not the correct type when you have overlapping keys)

Anything with optional fields can be widened incorrectly

    const unsound = <T extends { x: number }>(t: T): { x: number, y?: number } => t
    const bad: number | undefined = unsound({ x: 5, y: "not a number" }).y

Assignment doesn't handle `readonly` properly

    interface Readonly {
        readonly x: number
    }
    interface Mutable {
      x: number
    }
    const a: Readonly = Object.freeze({x: 5 })
    const b: Mutable = a
    b.x = 4

> The OPERATION is legal, but the data isn't, which isn't something that any type system will tell you.

There are some that will, though unfortunately none that are really production-ready yet.

[chubot → consilient]

Great examples, thanks!! I typed them all into the TypeScript playground.

I agree this is weird, and seems to follow from TypeScript's heritage as "trying to describe whatever dynamic JS does"

I mean that's probably why I didn't use it for >10 years (in addition to its JS heritage). But I did find that there is an interesting subset, at least for playing around.

I think the JSON.parse() issue is fundamental -- it's not clear what they could have done better, and static languages don't really do better. There is a fundamental problem there -- type systems are interior to a process, while data is exterior (https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2023/06/ysh-design.html)

I'm going to read this static TypeScript paper -- https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/static-... Hopefully that's a sound subset :)

[consilient → chubot]

> I think the JSON.parse() issue is fundamental -- it's not clear what they could have done better, and static languages don't really do better.

The best solution, IMO, is to give up on "no type-directed emit" (which harms the language in lots of other ways as well) and derive appropriate parsers at compile-time. Parsing malformed data should fail immediately, not just when you try to use the broken parts. This is a solved problem in C#, C++, Haskell, and no doubt many other languages.

Failing that, it should return an appropriate `JSON` type. Something along the lines of

    type Field = string | number | boolean | null | JSON
    type JSON = {[key in string]?: Field } | Field[]