No, I'm sorry, but type annotations are where the conversation happens. It's very very important in my view that type inference is a pure - ideally easy to mentally model - function of the source code you're looking at. Type annotations let you negotiate with and probe that function, and then once you understand what it's doing and have gotten it in a good place you can remove all the ones that aren't needed
Adding (hidden!) state to that process sounds like my worst nightmare as a programmer
Another point that I failed to make in the post (thanks for the pushback!) is that type inference algorithms leave you high & dry in the presence of a type error. Then you're left with lots of hidden state (the internal steps the algorithm took before arriving at the error) and the final conclusion, which, if you're lucky, points you to two places in the code where the inferred types are in disagreement.
With my proposed system, all types are annotated all the time (to be shown or hidden via editor flag, or on hover), and the annotations are updated in response to actions taken within the editor. The "algorithm" becomes extremely simple, with almost no intermediate steps.
Of course, proof will be in the pudding, if I can actually achieve a pleasant editing experience :)
So there are two possible reasons I can see for automatically "annotating" all the types:
- Caching that info to easily show in the editor (which is a good feature, but many editors already do this without having to modify the source; it happens entirely editor-side)
- Using the "current" inferred type as a jumping-off point for determining the "next" inferred type
The second was my original interpretation, and what sounded so distressing as a user
Consider this situation:
1. Your program and the inferred types are in one state
2. You modify some code which changes an inferred type
3. You change the (visible) code back to what it was previously, but now the inferred type is different because it was partially based on the previous inferred type
This is what sounds like a nightmare, assuming I understand correctly that it's possible on the described system. The inferred types are now a state machine, where it matters not just what code is on screen, but how it got there.
How much state gets hidden is 100% on the quality of the implementation, isn’t it? There’s nothing that forbids an implementation from dumping that hidden state in whatever form it wants to (as an example, compare C++ diagnostics of different compilers or different versions of a compiler)
> The "algorithm" becomes extremely simple, with almost no intermediate steps.
I don’t see how it can become simple merely be the way things are presented. If you write f(foo,qbar,baz,quux) in a language where overload resolution is complex and the compiler has 20 overloads to pick from, but can’t find a ‘best’ one, it still has to show you what overloads it considered, how it ranked them and why, and which ones were left.
So, if you want type errors to be extremely simple, I think you need a simple language (type-wise)
My initial impression is that if I were to use a system like this, I would want any type annotation that differs from the default inference to be visible. The only choice left, then, is when to display redundant annotations, which is where a lot of the disagreement around type inference is, even without this scheme.
Lesson learned: Sometimes type inference fails, and always annotate your types at FFI boundaries!
I tend to write code for a bit, and then ask it one of two questions (1) what is the type of this thing or (2) is there any part of this that looks wrong?
In particular (2) is obviously type checking (which is great to run in a fast background loop like `cargo watch -x check`) and (1) is some system for "please insert an annotation on this variable with your current inferred type". This happens near constantly, and a very common "move" I make typing is to isolate some section and give it a temporary variable name just so I can receive that annotation.
The flow there could be better, to be sure.
The proposal here is kind of fascinating with regard to question (1), making it less interactive and more reactive. It reminds me of, say, working with Observable, where you make edits throughout your document and watch the dependents react.
To that end, being able to draw circles around fragments of code and have a persistent monitor that reactively outputs either "error: [reason]" or the type of that variable as I edit the code seems great.
Though I do feel a little uncomfortable with that being literally embedded in the code. Code being reactively edited by a program makes me itch with fear of file corruption.
Agda programmer here. Not sure what you mean here. Although Agda does save a binary cache file to minimize type-checking latency (.agdai, "agda interface") with compressed type information, it does not have any kind of hidden state. This is very different than what the OP suggests.
Other than this, I agree with you. When I write code in a typed language I have a conversation with the compiler. I keep asking, is this ok, what do you think about this, what type is this... Which is why I find OP misguided. You can have a conversation with the compiler without hidden state.
I think it's turned off by default for most languages though - probably considered unnecessary, as you can always just hover over the variable. Also, unlike the JetBrains IDEs, I don't think you can Ctrl+Click on such a hint to navigate to its definition in VS Code (like you can in normal code).
Some inferred types in Rust can be pages long. Have fun with those merge conflicts!
Unison is the language that's gone farthest with this, as far as I know; their solution to diffs & merges is to handle everything from within their CLI, bypassing git entirely. I imagine I'll do something similar.
FWIW, I'm totally on board with the idea of focusing on the interactive experience, but history has shown it to be very difficult for language environments not based on files to cross the chasm into more common use. (If you don't care about lots of users, then ignore this entire comment! Plus, it's always _possible_ that something will cross over, but we've got decades of people trying...)
Anyhow, I'm really excited to see where you go with this!
So the language implementors have to write everything the developer needs: code editor, source control, code review, code browser, etc
You're completely isolated from the wider ecosystem of development, and the benefits so far don't seem worth it. As described here, you save on the reference resolution phase of linking, which is nice, it should be faster and eliminate some classes of error.
The nice part about text as a common format is that it's common. If every language has to implement every tool then it's an N * M problem. When tools can be reused across languages they become N + M.
A user of a projectional language is giving up git, Github, their favorite code editor, and depending on language-specific tooling to replace all of that. And even when the lang-specific tooling is sufficient, it needs to be relearned and recustomized (think all the configuration just in a code editor: prefs, theme, extensions like VIM keybinds and Copilot, etc).
Is the benefit worth the cost?
So I'm assuming your language will have some sort of custom source code management system? If so, what do you do when a user wants to store a non-code file together with the source code, e.g. how web applications might have CSS files, fonts and image assets in the repo?
On the one hand, one of the main benefits of types, and the only one for which there is empirical evidence, is the (automatically checked) documentation effect. For this, the types have to be visible.
On the other hand, not having to type in the types all the time and having them inferred instead seems like a major convenience. For this type types cannot be visible.
Compared to that, the inefficiency of having to do the work over and over seems like a relatively minor issue, though compile times are getting ever more problematic.
So I really like the idea of having types that can be inferred and persisted, though I'd prefer the language to make some room for having "provisional" type annotations, so basically using all sources for getting the types: the user, inference, the running program (dynamic languages can find out about actual types at runtime).
This is similar to what TFA proposes, and it doesn’t require storage of type information separately from the source code, or in some AST representation. The type information is simply “stored” in the plain-text source code itself, as type declarations/annotations.
I like this approach better than having the IDE merely render inferred type information alongside the source code, because (a) when the type information is part of the actual source code, then it is always visible, e.g. in diffs and source control tools, and (b) like TFA suggests it gives opportunity to interactively resolve type conflicts, and making those decisions “sticky”. With the right IDE tooling, you still wouldn’t need to type the types yourself mist of the time.
Sounds great! And very close to what I was thinking about.
What's your IDE?
> The type information is simply “stored” in the plain-text source code itself, as type declarations/annotations.
Yes, I think that's the right way to do it. I do believe that there needs to be some way to tell the difference between these three cases:
1. I put the type information there, that's really what I intended
2. The system put the type information there and I okayed it
3. This is what the system currently thinks, no human interaction
However, I believe this just from thinking about it, without having used such a system, so I may be completely wrong.
My background is also dynamically typed systems like Smalltalk, so the state of having no static type information available is also acceptable.
