## 25 January 2016

### “Weird” is intellectually lazy

Saying “X is weird” is equivalent to saying “I don’t understand X, and I blame X for it.”

I often have to make this point in discussions of programming languages. I enjoy writing in Haskell, and I’ve taught it to a number of developers. People who are accustomed to imperative programming languages are quick to term Haskell “weird”. When I ask what they mean by this, it usually boils down to the fact that it’s different from what they’re accustomed to, and they don’t understand why the differences are necessary or useful.

A “weird” language feature is one that seems gratuitous because, almost by definition, you don’t yet understand why the language authors would’ve designed it that way. Once you understand the reasoning behind it, the weirdness evaporates. Of course, you might still reasonably hate the design, but it’s impossible to give a fair critique without a proper understanding.

For instance, criticising Go for its lack of generics misses the point of what Go is for—to be a simple, boring language, with minor improvements on the status quo, that admits good tooling. And Go does this admirably. It’s not going to advance the state of the art in the slightest. It’s not going to shape the future of programming. It is going to be a language that people use for writing regular old code right now.

To shamelessly misappropriate a quote from Tim Minchin: “Throughout history, every mystery ever solved turned out to be not magic.” If you find yourself thinking that something is weird or magical, that’s not an excuse to dismiss it out of hand—rather, it’s an excellent opportunity to dig in and learn something enlightening.

## 14 January 2016

### Thoughts on using fractional types to model mutable borrowing of substructures

In type theory, a pair is denoted by a product type, with a constructor pair and two projections fst and snd:

$$\textrm{pair}(a, b) : a \times b \\ \textrm{fst} : a \times b \to a \\ \textrm{snd} : a \times b \to b$$

These projections are destructive: the pair is consumed, and one of the values is discarded. However, when we have a large structure, often it’s cheaper to modify parts of it in place, rather than duplicating and reconstructing it. So we’d like to come up with a system that lets us lend a field out for modification temporarily, and repossess the modified field afterward. That would let us model mutation in terms of pure functions, with the same performance as direct mutation.

Obviously our projections can’t destroy either of the fields, because we want to be able to put them back together into a real pair again. So the functions must be linear—the result has to contain both $a$ and $b$. What result can we return other than $a \times b$? I dunno, how about something isomorphic?

$$\textrm{lend-fst} : a \times b \to a \times ((a \times b) / a) \\ \textrm{lend-snd} : a \times b \to b \times ((a \times b) / b)$$

So this gives us a semantics for quotient types: a quotient $a / b$ denotes a value of type $a$ less a “hole” that we can fill in with a value of type $b$. We can implement this by drawing another isomorphism between $(a \times b) / a$ and something like $\textrm{ref}(a) \times (\textrm{hole}(\textrm{sizeof}(a)) \times b)$—the “hole” is an appropriately sized slot that we can fill in with a value of type $a$, and the quotient denotes a write-once mutable reference to that slot.

The inverses of the lending functions are the repossession functions, which repossess the field and reconstitute the pair by filling in the reference:

$$\textrm{repo-fst} : a \times ((a \times b) / a) \to a \times b \\ \textrm{repo-snd} : b \times ((a \times b) / b) \to a \times b$$

When we fill in the slot, the reference and quotient are destroyed, and we get back a complete data structure again. The references are relative, like C++ member references, so we could use this to implement, say, swapping fields between two structures.

I’m pretty sure that if you made these types non-duplicable, it’d guarantee that the lifetime of a substructure reference would be a sub-lifetime of the lifetime of the structure. So, notably, these lending functions wouldn’t need to actually do anything at runtime; they’d simply give us a type-level way to ensure that only one mutable reference to a particular field of a value could exist at a time. The same property is enforced in Rust with its borrow system, but in this system, we don’t need any concept of references or lifetimes. Rather than enforce a static approximation of stack/scope depth, as in Rust, we can enforce a static approximation of structure depth.

We probably need a subtyping rule, which states that a quotient type is a subtype of its numerator, as long as the denominator is not void:

$$a / b \le a, b \ne 0$$

You can’t borrow a void field from a structure anyway, because you can’t construct a void value, so the side condition should never come up in practice.

In order for this to be useful in a real language, we probably need an additional “swap” rule, which states that it doesn’t matter in which order we lend or repossess substructures:

$$a / b / c = a / c / b$$

And clearly $a / 1$ is isomorphic to $a$, because every structure is perfectly happy to lend out useless values, and repossessing them does nothing.

We can use negative types to denote borrowing of fields from discriminated unions. If the type $a + b$ denotes a discriminated union like Haskell’s Either a b (which has a value of Left x where x is of type a, or Right y where y is of type b) then we also have two projections—but they’re weird:

$$\textrm{lend-left} : a + b \to a + ((a + b) - a) \\ \textrm{lend-right} : a + b \to b + ((a + b) - b)$$

Here, when we try to lend out a field, it might not be present. So we get either the lent field, or an instance of a smaller sum type. This can be used to implement pattern-matching: try to lend each field in turn, reducing the space of possible choices by one field at a time. If you get all the way down to $0$, you have a pattern-match failure. This automatically rules out redundant patterns: you can’t try to match on a field you’ve already tried, because it’s no longer present in the type.

That’s about as far as I’ve gotten with this line of thinking. If anyone has ideas for how to extend it or put it into practice, feel free to comment.

## 07 June 2015

### Give.

When I walk down the streets of San Francisco, people sometimes ask me for money. And if I have the time, as I almost always do, I stop and talk with them about what brought them to where they are. And if I have the cash, as I almost always do, I give it to them.

People tell me that I’m foolish for giving money to people for no reason. My donations aren’t tax-deductible! They don’t go on the record anywhere! These people might just be using my hard-earned money to buy alcohol and drugs!

So what? I use my money to buy alcohol and drugs. Because like an awful lot of people in the modern west, I’m lonely. My vices are a distraction to tide me over until I meet another lonely someone whose flaws are compatible enough with my own that we can rub our woes together and feel whole again.

So if you can give, give. What the fuck does someone with a steady job need with another few bucks? Let it go. It might make the difference between life and death for someone who was dealt a shitty hand.

## 27 May 2015

### Don’t say what you mean.

In conversation, I used to think it was good to say what you meant. I thought doing so would help me be understood. But I learned very quickly when tutoring computer science students in college that this strategy does not work in general.

The real challenge is to say what you think will make you understood. This turns out to be hard, because you need to develop a mental model of another person’s understanding. It means looking at what you’re trying to say in a new way. This has happy side effects, though: it makes you more empathetic toward others, and gives you a better understanding of the subject.

The old joke “Those who can’t do, teach” is a stupid statement—but an awesome prescription! If you can’t do it, teach it! By explaining things you’ve learned to others, you can develop your understanding and skill. When you can explain something to anyone, it means you have a fully developed model of it in your mind, one that you can look at from anyone’s point of view.

Similarly, when we’re trying to understand others, we should not be listening to what they say but trying to understand what they mean. When someone says something offensive or upsetting, often they didn’t intend for it to sound that way, and the intent matters. Being misunderstood feels bad; think about how often you’ve probably made someone feel that way because you didn’t take a moment to think.

As listeners, we should ask for clarification and try to understand why something was said. Sometimes it’s because a person has a belief we disagree with, or a bias we think is unfair. Sometimes it’s because we were hurtful to them, and they were acting in self-defense. In these cases we can use the moment as an opportunity to learn and teach, rather than getting offended and putting everyone involved on the defensive.

The vast majority of the time, people are basically well-intentioned and just trip a little on the delivery. Giving them the benefit of the doubt is important to develop mutual understanding.

## 23 May 2015

### Consent is important. Don’t oversimplify it.

Rape happens. It’s an awful reality, which a lot of good people are working very hard to fix. That starts with teaching people about consent and why it’s essential to healthy sexual interactions. But a lot of explanations of consent, while undeniably good and well intentioned, fall short of the truth.

The conventional wisdom is essentially you should only have sex if everyone involved wants to. That’s true, but not the whole story. The thing is, there are many reasons that people might want to have sex, and they might disagree with your reasons, or even your idea of what it means to want something. And that’s okay.

I’ve been in healthy relationships in which there was a mutual agreement that initiating sex while the other partner was asleep was perfectly acceptable. It was understood that if either of us wanted an interaction to stop, we would say so and the other partner would respect that. So my partner initiated sex with me while I was asleep, and vice versa—does that make us both rapists? Of course not. Those who would say yes aren’t examining deeply enough what consent really is.

I’ve been in situations where one partner was in the mood for sex, while the other partner was not. Yet the non-aroused partner still helped the aroused one to feel satisfied. They did something they didn’t “want” to do, and yet no rape occurred—it was simply a case of a person doing something to please their partner with the understanding of non-obligation and reciprocity. That’s not only okay, it’s a prominent feature of good sex and good relationships.

I have experienced unwanted sexual situations. They were horrible, and I wouldn’t wish them on anyone. But consent is not a black-and-white, unequivocal issue. It relies on a continual dialogue of reciprocity and mutuality, and it’s up to individuals to decide what is and is not okay.

It’s not for an outsider to decide from their armchair whether some interaction between other people was okay or not. If someone says they were raped, you listen to them. And if they say they weren’t, you listen to them then, too.