re: Is “Defensive Programming” actually healthy? VIEW POST

FULL DISCUSSION
 

The never type is nice, and this is a nice example of it, but I feel YAGNI really should apply to features, or the idea of a feature down the pipeline.

This is more of using a bad a data structure I feel. There should not be an anonymous union type as a return, and since it's a map, I think an explicit map makes more sense to use here.

This all said, the kind of YAGNI that it is, I say fine, but make a tech debt issue or something if they don't want to deal with it right now. I get the idea that you sometimes just want done with a ticket or PR.

But a never case is nice for sure. It fixes problems of people using switches poorly too. Switches work well for things that have a defined range of values that won't change (Days of the week I hope...) but not things like traffic light states.

 

Good points. I especially appreciate your pragmatic point about making a tech debt ticket.

This is more of using a bad a data structure I feel. There should not be an anonymous union type as a return

Yea I must admit that I used the string union type because I think it’s fun (and a type that is only available in TypeScript and Haskell from what I understand), but I could have used an enum to illustrate the same point. And I feel like this kind of defensive programming is even more important for enums since values can be added at any time.

But yea, never is a fun type and very valuable here.

code of conduct - report abuse