zlacker

>>andsoi+(OP)
> "Modern" languages try to avoid exceptions by using sum types and pattern matching plus lots of sugar to make this bearable. I personally dislike both exceptions and its emulation via sum types. ... I personally prefer to make the error state part of the objects: Streams can be in an error state, floats can be NaN and integers should be low(int) if they are invalid.

Special values like NaN are half-assed sum types. The latter give you compiler guarantees.

>>esafak+uTb
The compiler can still enforce checks, such as with nil checks for pointers.

In my opinion it’s overall cleaner if the compiler handles enforcing it when it can. Something like “ensure variable is initialized” can just be another compiler check.

Combined with an effects system that lets you control which errors to enforce checking on or not. Nim has a nice `forbids: IOException` that lets users do that.

>>elcrit+zYb
> The compiler can still enforce checks, such as with nil checks for pointers.

Only sometimes, when the compiler happens to be able to understand the code fully enough. With sum types it can be enforced all the time, and bypassed when the programmer explicitly wants it to be.

>>umanwi+a1c
There's nothing preventing this for floats and ints in principle. e.g. the machine representation could be float, but the type in the eyes of the compiler could be `float | nan` until you check it for nan (at which point it becomes `float`). Then any operation which can return nan would return `float | nan` instead.

tbh this system (assuming it works that way) would be more strict at compile-time than the vast majority of languages.