Upgrade to Pro
— share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …
Speaker Deck
Features
Speaker Deck
PRO
Sign in
Sign up for free
Search
Search
My Problem, My Solution
Search
Penelope Phippen
September 12, 2014
Technology
1
48
My Problem, My Solution
A talk about typing I gave at Frozen Rails 2014
Penelope Phippen
September 12, 2014
Tweet
Share
More Decks by Penelope Phippen
See All by Penelope Phippen
Introducing Rubyfmt
penelope_zone
0
540
How RSpec Works
penelope_zone
0
6.5k
Quick and easy browser testing using RSpec and Rails 5.1
penelope_zone
1
75
Teaching RSpec to play nice with Rails
penelope_zone
2
120
Little machines that eat strings
penelope_zone
1
84
What is processor (brighton ruby edition)
penelope_zone
0
94
What is processor?
penelope_zone
1
340
extremely defensive coding - rubyconf edition
penelope_zone
0
250
Agile, etc.
penelope_zone
2
210
Other Decks in Technology
See All in Technology
KubeCon NA 2024 Recap / Running WebAssembly (Wasm) Workloads Side-by-Side with Container Workloads
z63d
1
250
ブラックフライデーで購入したPixel9で、Gemini Nanoを動かしてみた
marchin1989
1
540
OpenAIの蒸留機能(Model Distillation)を使用して運用中のLLMのコストを削減する取り組み
pharma_x_tech
4
560
終了の危機にあった15年続くWebサービスを全力で存続させる - phpcon2024
yositosi
17
16k
サービスでLLMを採用したばっかりに振り回され続けたこの一年のあれやこれや
segavvy
2
490
小学3年生夏休みの自由研究「夏休みに Copilot で遊んでみた」
taichinakamura
0
170
Amazon VPC Lattice 最新アップデート紹介 - PrivateLink も似たようなアップデートあったけど違いとは
bigmuramura
0
200
Oracle Cloudの生成AIサービスって実際どこまで使えるの? エンジニア目線で試してみた
minorun365
PRO
4
290
普通のエンジニアがLaravelコアチームメンバーになるまで
avosalmon
0
110
レンジャーシステムズ | 会社紹介(採用ピッチ)
rssytems
0
170
1等無人航空機操縦士一発試験 合格までの道のり ドローンミートアップ@大阪 2024/12/18
excdinc
0
170
podman_update_2024-12
orimanabu
1
280
Featured
See All Featured
4 Signs Your Business is Dying
shpigford
181
21k
The Success of Rails: Ensuring Growth for the Next 100 Years
eileencodes
44
6.9k
Performance Is Good for Brains [We Love Speed 2024]
tammyeverts
6
520
What’s in a name? Adding method to the madness
productmarketing
PRO
22
3.2k
Let's Do A Bunch of Simple Stuff to Make Websites Faster
chriscoyier
507
140k
Building Adaptive Systems
keathley
38
2.3k
BBQ
matthewcrist
85
9.4k
Understanding Cognitive Biases in Performance Measurement
bluesmoon
26
1.5k
Rails Girls Zürich Keynote
gr2m
94
13k
Fashionably flexible responsive web design (full day workshop)
malarkey
405
66k
Imperfection Machines: The Place of Print at Facebook
scottboms
266
13k
Visualization
eitanlees
146
15k
Transcript
The maybe monad as a replacement for nil
My Problem My Solution
Everyone Stand Up
None
a!/samphippen
My Problem
Type Checking is the Antithesis of Object Oriented Programming
Type
Types
What is a type?
What is a data type?
A type is a set of possible values and operations
Class
Terms are literally interchangeable in Ruby
Terms are literally interchangeable in Ruby Konstantin
Fixnum
✕
+
/
—
1.class # => Fixnum
You know what all these things do
1+1 # => 2
Array
count
each
In Ruby some types are interchangeable
Typeclass
A set of types and common operations
There is some expectation of what the operations will do
Duck typing
All number types in Ruby form a typeclass
Fixnum Float BigDecimal
Numeric Op Numeric = Numeric
Positive Numeric + Positive Numeric = Positive Numeric =
Also collections
Hash Set Array
Type Checking is the Antithesis of Object Oriented Programming
Type Checking is the Antithesis of Object Oriented Programming
Type Checking
This term has two meanings
Compile time type checking
public static final List<string> seriouslyiamsoboredwh ocares
Like in Java
Clearly we don’t do this in Ruby
So what do I mean?
ActiveRecord::Base #find_by
pony = Pony.find_by(:id => smth) pony.neigh
pony = Pony.find_by(:id => smth) if pony pony.neigh else puts
“No Pony can’t neigh” end
The problem here is two return types
nil Pony < AR::Base
We’re forced to add a type check
Also, I think this is the wrong type check
pony = Pony.find_by(:id => smth) if !pony.nil? pony.neigh else puts
“No Pony can’t neigh” end
A more explicit type check
But still wrong
pony = Pony.find_by(:id => smth) if !pony.nil? pony.neigh else puts
“No Pony can’t neigh” end
pony = Pony.find_by(:id => smth) if pony.respond_to?(:neigh) pony.neigh else puts
“No Pony can’t neigh” end
This type checking adds unnecessary complexity to our app
Type Checking is the Antithesis of Object Oriented Programming
Type Checking is the Antithesis of Object Oriented Programming
Antithesis
I am using it to mean “DOING IT WRONG”
Type Checking is the Antithesis of Object Oriented Programming
Type Checking is the Antithesis of Object Oriented Programming
Object oriented programming
Konstantin Haase says:
Data abstraction and control abstraction
Alan Kay says:
Everything is an object
Objects communicate by sending and receiving messages
def bees if :bar == a.foo else end end
def bees a.foo nil end
Tell don’t ask
Objects have their own memory (in terms of objects).
Data hiding
Every object is an instance of a class (which must
be an object).
The class holds the shared behavior for its instances (in
the form of objects in a program list)
To eval a program list, control is passed to the
first object and the remainder is treated as its message.
Type Checking is the Antithesis of Object Oriented Programming
Type Checking is the Antithesis of Object Oriented Programming
My Problem
My Problem
My Solution
Just always make your methods return things of a consistent
type class
Thanks!
No obviously there’s more
Third party APIs do this all the time
pony = Pony.find_by(:id => smth) if pony pony.neigh else puts
“No Pony can’t neigh” end
The problem here is two return types
As a client of this API I am forced to
add a type check
nil is such a common case
How do we fix it?
Null object pattern
I think this one is quite well known
class Pony def horse_power 0.5 end end
Pony.find_by( :key => value ) || NullPony.new
class NullPony def horse_power 0 end end
NullPony quacks the same as Pony
Solves the typing problem
Summing over ponies will only count Pony objects
0 might be the wrong default
Pony * NullPony = 0
Decided the default for horse_power when defining the class
Change is inevitable
Can’t predict how NullPony will be used in the future
Maybe Typeclass
Solves same problem
Allows for runtime defaults
#map(&blk) -> Maybe #value_or(a) -> a
class Just def initialize(value) @value = value end def map(&blk)
def value_or(x) Just.new(blk.call(@value)) @value end end end
class Nothing def map(&blk) self end def value_or(x) x end
end
A consistent interface for dealing with missing values
NoMethodError: undefined method `foo' for nil:NilClass
NoMethodError: undefined method `foo' for nil:NilClass
[Maybe, Nothing, Maybe]
call map on all of them
collapse with value_or
To Recap:
Null object can replace nils if you know the defaults
at class definition time
Maybe if you want defaults at run time
Your job is not to make Alan Kay happy
RSpec RSpec ! ! RSpec 3
tinyurl.com/ samfr2014
Let’s have some questions a!/samphippen
[email protected]