Maybe Not - Rich Hickey
Why Hacker News recommends it
HN commenters send people to it whenever nulls, Maybe/Option or static typing come up, as a thoughtful dissent from the type-system orthodoxy that changes how some people model data.
What it is
Rich Hickey's Clojure/Conj 2018 keynote argues that Maybe/Option types and rigid type signatures are a poor way to model data that changes over time. He builds the case around optionality, schema growth and compatibility, and presents the ideas behind Clojure spec as an alternative.
Recommended by 14 HN commenters across 11 different months, 2018 to 2025.
What Hacker News said
Strong rec slifin · 2018-11 · on “Clojure REBL [video]”
While we're talking about this conference, rich hickey just changed how I think about domain modelling forever with this talk, released about an hour ago: [this video] Strongly recommend a watch particularly if you're modelling something in a typed language
Strong rec gambler · 2018-12 · on “NULL: The worst mistake of computer science? (2015)”
Rich Hickey's "Maybe Not" should be watched by anyone who thinks nulls/nils/undefineds are okay. It should also be watched by anyone who think that Optional/Maybe/Nullable and good enough: [this video]
Strong rec ttiurani · 2018-12 · on “Ask HN: Best talks of 2018?”
"Maybe Not" by Rich Hickey: [this video] Another excellent talk by the creator of Clojure, and like the previous ones, relevant for all programmers.
Strong rec vga805 · 2019-01 · on “Porting 30K lines of code from Flow to TypeScript”
I bounce back and forth between TypeScript and Clojure. I've been keeping a close eye on Clojure's upcoming spec as it seems to be a nice opt-in, run-time type-checking solution. I like the flexibility and quickness with which dynamic languages let me iterate, but I want the safety. I want at least some of the benefits of both. So yes, they (dynamically typed languages) have some advantages. Sometimes when I'm iterating quickly, especially on new projects, I don't want to fight with the compiler. BUT, I vastly prefer TypeScript to JavaScript because JS has a lot of foot-guns. I think when we get the existential operator, it will have less foot-guns, but I will probably never again write a ne
Strong rec MarkMarine · 2024-11 · on “Programming languages that blew my mind (2023)”
My mind blown experience was listening to a Rich Hickey talk (maybe not [1]) that flipped upside down my accepted method of thinking about types and type system paradigms. I still love writing Haskell and Rust, but I see the warts that he is so concisely pointing out. The either type really sticks out to me now, and I see the problems with overtyping what are essentially maps, and how rigid that makes every aspect of your programs. Currently I deal with a fairly large go monolith that had some clean code practices in it, and changing a single field that is going to make it into the public API ends up being hundreds or thousands of lines of changes. Such a waste of time to CRUD what is a map
Recommends jpittis · 2018-12 · on “Party REPL – A multi-player REPL built for pair-programming [video]”
Conj always makes me so envious. So many good talks. This one, the Rich Hickey one on Maybe, the Stuart Halloway one on REBL. Any other must watches? Hickey: [this video] Halloway: [LINK]
Recommends draw_down · 2018-12 · on “NULL: The worst mistake of computer science? (2015)”
Since it's so close to this topic, I recommend Rich Hickey's talk from about a week ago, called "Maybe Not". It's mostly about the issue of how to specify the shape of data a function requires (takes as input) and provides (emits as output), but it also contains a really nice discussion of problems with Option/Maybe types. Anyway, my feeling is that I don't understand what people expect to happen here. Due to a misunderstanding, bad assumption, or other error, you expected to have something when you actually don't have the thing. A null-reference exception (or equivalent) is just the symptom. Null isn't the problem, our dumb brains that constantly make dumb mistakes are the problem. Option/M
Recommends jmiskovic · 2020-03 · on “Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread”
I would say Clojure more than substantial returns of invested time. Not just the language itself, but also the wider approach to software composition, feature accretion vs backward compatibility, schema'd dynamic typing seem benefictial no matter what your development tools you use. Maybe check out the talks below and see if they don't enRich you as software engineer. [LINK] The Language of the System [LINK] Design, Composition, and Performance [LINK] Spec-ulation [this video] Maybe Not