Skip to content
Branch: master
Find file Copy path
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
1394 lines (1082 sloc) 55.3 KB

Maybe Not

[Time 0:00:00]

slide title: Maybe Not

Rich Hickey

Thank you. Hi. Everybody can hear me? All right.

Once again, it is wonderful to see everybody here. A lot of friends. How many people have been here every time? How many people it is the first time? Nice.

[Audience applause]

How many newlyweds? Yes. Oh, two! Woo!

[Audience applause]

Yeah. That is awesome.

Before I get started, there has been a lot of controversy about what we are working on, and how much we are working on it, and road maps. I hope it is evident to everyone this week what we have been working on. It is our fashion sense.

[Audience laughter]

And I am happy to announce tonight, with the caveat that things can change, and also that this is completely up to me, but the five year road map for Clojure is going to be stripes [touches his shirt], because I know you have seen enough of my purple shirt.

And if we get enough time to work on it -- and again, no guarantees -- we have done some experimental work already -- but we may work on scarves.

[Audience laughter]

[Time 0:01:39]

OK. Actually we have been working on a ton of stuff, and it is mostly getting spoken about at the Conj, but the thing we did not quite get out in time for Conj was [Clojure version] 1.10. But it represents a ton of work. And in particular, it represents a ton of work by someone who is not getting to speak, who you just heard speak, but I would really like to hear a super recognition for the work of Alex Miller.

[Audience applause]

All right. Maybe not. So yeah.

[Time 0:02:27]

slide title: $N Mistakes

+ "I call it my billion-dollar mistake.  It was the
  invention of the null reference in 1965"

                   -- Tony Hoare

[ ]

It is tricky working at the bottom of everybody else's stuff, being a language designer, and working on languages. And it is something that anyone who does it takes very seriously. And it is super stressful, because you just do not want to make mistakes.

But they happen. So let us talk about N dollar mistakes. So we are going to start with this quote from Tony Hoare, who said that null references were his billion dollar mistake. And they led to all kinds of exploits in languages like C, and things like that down the line. And of course they still exist. And we still have nulls, although we have Java's memory system, which makes them not necessarily exploit vectors, but certainly still things that we are not happy to see at run time, null pointer errors or whatnot.

[Time 0:03:24]

slide title: Where are nulls / options used?

+ optional requirements (args)
  + variadics and kw-args mitigate in Clojure
+ conditional provision (returns)
+ managing partial information (aggregates)
  + not idiomatic in Clojure

And there were many reasons why you might have put null references in a language back when he did that had nothing to do with design intention, or user intention. Things like: it was easy to implement, or it is efficient to implement, or they did not have another idea.

And in this talk, what I want to talk about is the fact that we still use things like this. We still have the desire to say that something is optional, and whether we use nulls or some other thing in our programming languages, this is still an idea. This idea of maybe not needing information in a certain context.

So when do we do it, and why? Well the first is that we might optionally require something. So you could give me this, or not. If you give it to me, maybe I will have an extended set of features I provide, but I do not need it. So this is an argument to my function I might not need. And of course if you have got no variadic args, and you have a fixed number of slots and some have to be optional, you are going to have to put your optional thing as one of the types of the args. Or if you are using something like spec, you are going to have to say that there.

Now we do that less often in Clojure, because we have a couple of other ways to accommodate optionality. For instance, we have variadics. So you can just not pass me those extra args. I will put them on the end, and I will have different overloads of arity, and that is how you can get them.

Or you can say the optional args are keyword args. And that is another way to do that that does not have you having a nominal thing which is a nilable, nullable, optional, maybe kind of thing in there. But that is a place, certainly, argument lists are kind of product types. They have places in them. The first argument, the second argument, and whatnot. When you have places, you have to put things in places.

[Time 0:05:25]

Another place where we use optionality is in returns. I am going to go try to find that thing for you, and if I find it I will return it, and if I cannot find it I will return null, did not find it, some other kind of thing. So I might or might not provide something to you. That is in the return value spot.

And pretty much there we do the null thing. And we have nil punning and everything else, because we are still having the nil party in Lisps.

And then the core of this talk is going to be about the third context, which I think is particularly interesting, and very challenging, which is: how do you manage partial information in aggregates? So I am going to give you a collection of stuff, or a bunch of things that have a name associated with the bunch, and then names within the bunch. And maybe in certain contexts I want to, or need to, see them coming towards me, or I will or will not give you them as a provision.

We do not, in Clojure, tend to do this using nulls, right? We do not put a key in our map, and put nil in as the value there. And I am going to talk about the differences there.

So this is the context. How do we represent optionality in programs?

[Time 0:06:51]

slide title: FTFY ?


  data Maybe a = Just a | Nothing


  abstract class Any

  abstract final class Nothing extends Any

  sealed abstract class Option[+A]

  object None extends Option[Nothing]

  final case class

    Some[+A](value: A) extends Option[A]

So of course nils were bad, so other people fixed them for us, and we are philistines for not yet using this. And there are many floating around. This is not like: there is one answer. There are many answers. So probably they are not all the best.

But in Haskell there is a type called Maybe. It is a parameterized type, Maybe of some type A. And it has two constructors. You can have just an A, or you can have "Nothing", which is our nil.

And then Scala uses a lot of things to make that same kind of thing ish, somewhat. So I think we will stick with the Haskell version moving forward.

[Time 0:07:43]

slide title: Making an arg optional

+ Yesterday

  foo :: x -> y

+ Today

  foo :: Maybe x -> y

+ compiler will force foo to check - win!

+ existing callers - break :(

And you will hear this said: this is the way to do this. This fixes the problem. What is great about it is: it forces you to check. And of course that is the most important thing in programming: that somebody is watching you and making sure you are checking for nils, no matter what the cost. And the problem is: no one can articulate the costs. No one ever mentions costs. It is all benefit.

But it is not. So when do you see the cost of Maybe? You see them in program maintenance.

So yesterday I had a function. It took an X, and returned a Y. People wrote code to that function.

Today, I am like: you know what? I was asking too much of you. I actually can get by without that X. I am now making it optional. This is an easing of requirements. An easing of requirements should be a compatible change, I think.

So we make this change. We say foo now takes a Maybe X. This is the way you write optionality. And returns a Y. And the compiler, inside foo, will make sure that the code in foo does not accidentally fail to consider Nothing. Woo! That is all win.

Except what? This breaks existing callers. This is a breaking change. It should be a compatible change, but it is a breaking change.

[Time 0:09:20]

slide title: Providing a stronger return promise

+ Yesterday

  foo :: x -> Maybe y

+ Today

  foo :: x -> y

+ future callers getter stronger guarantee

+ existing callers - break :(

Let us talk about providing a stronger return type. So yesterday, I was not sure if I could do the job in all cases. I was not sure I could provide a meaningful return value. So I took an X, and I returned a Maybe Y.

But today, I figured out how to give you an answer in all cases. And so, because when I was giving you that Maybe Y you had to deal with it, I want future callers to have more certainty about what they are getting. So I want to make a compatible change of strengthening my promise.

So relaxing a requirement should be a compatible change. Strengthening a promise should be a compatible change.

So I do this. I change it. I say: I am definitely going to give you a Y. Guess what happened? I broke all of my callers again. I broke my callers. Because now they have code that deals with Maybe, and they are not getting a Maybe any more.

[Time 0:10:21]

slide title: What's happening?

+ Maybe/Either are not type system's 'or/union' type
    + rather, evidence of _lack_ of first-class union types
  + 'Either' is -malarkey- [strike-through] misnomer
    + not associative / commutative / composable / symmetric

So what is happening here? What is happening is that Maybe and Either, in spite of their names, and the play on language in English, are not actually type systems "or", no matter how many blog posts from people that just learned Scala you read, and Haskell that you read. This is not "or".

This is evidence of a type system that does not have "or" for types, does not have union types, and you are trying to fix it in the user space. And guess what? You cannot fix it in the user space.

Either, in particular, wow. It is just not a beautiful thing. It does not mean "or". It has got a left and a right. It should have been called "left right thingy", because then you would have a better sense of the true semantics. There are no semantics, except what you superimpose on top of it. And using English words to try to give you some impression is not good, especially in this case where you are so failing to come close to "or".

It has none of the mathematical properties. It is not associative. It is not commutative. And it is not symmetric. Actually, better than "left right thingy" would be "sinister dexter thingy", because at least you would have some sense of how it treats "left". It is: quite poorly.

[Time 0:11:53]

slide title: Need not be this way

Kotlin - Nullable and Non-Null types:

  var a: String = "abc"

  a = null  // compilation error

  var b: String? = "abc"

  b = null  // ok


  "Union types are dual of intersection types.  Values of type A | B
  are all values of type A and all values of type B.

  | is commutative: A | B is the same type as B | A."

So I have a reputation for bashing type systems, and I am not. I am bashing Maybe and Either. But other type systems have other answers to the same questions.

Here is Kotlin. Kotlin has nullable and non-null types. So if you say "String", it is assignable from a string. That is pretty good. But if you try to assign null to it, it says "compilation error". So they have strengthened the reference types in Kotlin. They have said: you know what? Null is not an OK value of all reference types, even though the Java JVM allows you to have a null as the value of string, we are not going to allow it in the surface language of Kotlin, even though it compiles to byte code.

But you can have string question mark ["String?"], and question mark is the way you add nullability to a type. And it creates a proper union -- all of the strings and null -- as a type. Because types are sets. So it is all of the strings -- that set -- and one more thing. And then it is assignable from both. You can assign it from "abc" and you can assign it from null.

[Time 0:12:59]

If you made the same changes I just described in Kotlin, you would not break callers. Subject to how Kotlin links, and I do not know how Kotlin links.

Dotty, the successor to Scala that the Odersky team is working on, has union types in their plan. And it says of union types: union types are the dual of intersection types. Values of type A -- I am going to say "or" because I think it matches -- values of type A or B are all values of type A, and all values of type B. That set. It is a set union. "or" is commutative. "A or B" is the same type as "B or A".

I think this is awesome. I have never used a type system where I have not desperately wanted this. So it can be different. Do not get lectured to by people about Maybe and Either. They are not the best answers in the type system world.

[Time 0:14:00]

slide title: What about Clojure?

+ spec/nilable
+ spec/or

So let us get to the harder problems. First of all, let us talk about Clojure's versions of those things. Obviously we are dynamically typed, so we do not get into the "are you doing the right thing?" game until we add spec. But once we add spec, we are exactly in the same place. We are trying to enforce, in testing, the same kinds of things. Are you making sure you are dealing with what you expect? Are people passing you what you expect? Are you returning what they expect? Are you providing and requiring?

So we have spec/nilable, which is an analogy to the Kotlin nullable, and we have spec/or, which is straight "or". Of course, our types are just sort of predicative sets. You have a predicate. Things that satisfy the predicate constitute a set. And "or" is unions of those sets. And it has all of the same properties you want for "or". That is why we are allowed to call it "or".

[Time 0:15:01]

slide title: Partial information

+ when requiring / providing aggregates
+ aggregate
  from ad- "to" + gregare "flock / herd"
+ information that travels together

So let us talk about the hard problem. The hard problem is this partial information problem. So here we are talking about providing or supplying aggregates. So in Clojure, we would be talking about sending around maps. In object oriented languages you would be talking about sending around objects, instances of classes. You might have a language that has record types. It could be that. Or it could be Haskell-style types.

Of course we have our definition: aggregate. And the thing that is cool -- more secrets of giving talks -- is that it seems like I know all of this Latin stuff. But what happens is: I look it up, and I see this great definition, and I am like: "oh my goodness!" I mean, we have known it all along. Like our languages embed essential concepts.

[Time 0:16:01]

And so when I looked up "aggregate", I discovered that "gregare", which is the same root as "gregarious", it means "flock" or "herd". And flocks or herds mean animals that travel together. This is a beautiful notion. It is exactly the right notion that I need for this talk, which is that we are trying to talk about information flow in programs. And we are trying to say: we are creating these sort of ad hoc, willy nilly aggregations for the purpose of a particular communication. We are gathering a set of fields, sets of information, things we know, and we are passing them around. It is going to travel together.

So the notion of aggregates I think is super important, and the notion of an aggregate being a herd is really beautiful. So we want to stick to that. No matter how you make aggregations in your programs, you are doing the same thing. You are trying to name your herds, your flocks.

[Time 0:17:04]

slide title: Sets vs Slots

[ Left picture is a herd of sheep grazing near each other in an open
grassy field.  Right picture shows a collection of small square pens
bounded by short walls, with one sheep inside each pen. ]

00.17.04 Sets vs Slots

So now we get to sort of a fundamental difference in how you model this. It is sets versus slots.

In Clojure we use maps. That is fundamentally sets of keys, and the things to which they are associated. In languages with records and whatnot, you are dealing with slots.

Of course, you can already tell which one is better.

[Audience laughter]

[Time 0:17:38]

slide title: Maps vs Records / Fields

+ maps are (mathematical) functions!
+ simplest functions in programming
  + keyset -> vals
  + no code, no categories
+ in Clojure, we can directly write, and invoke

  ({:a 1 :b 2} :b)  =>  2

So let us talk about maps. I find it really interesting, because people look at maps, and our use of maps, and they are like: it is just you being lazy, blah, blah, blah.

But you know what? The thing is ... Russ Olsen just gave a talk, and he was trying to talk about functional programming to people who were just trying it. And he talked about mathematical functions, and the fact that they are essentially mappings, but they are essentially abstract. And in programming, we only get mappings via code.

That is not true, actually. We have an even more primitive way to get from a mapping of one set to another. And it is the literal map. It is saying: if you give me this, I will give you that. If you give me this other thing, I will give you this other thing. And if you give me this third thing, I will give you this third thing. I am saying specifically, declaratively, with no executable code, no functions being run, nothing, a definition of a function. A mathematical function. A mapping between a set and another set. It is a concrete thing.

[Time 0:18:51]

It is the best function in programming, because it is the easiest one to understand. It should be a function. It should be something that you can call, if it is a function. And we can call the keys, right? We do this all day long. Maps are the most fundamental functions in programming. They should not be denigrated. They should be exalted. This is the first place to start. This is the simplest thing that you can do.

There is no code associated with it. There are no categorical statements that need to be made about it. It is not like: something of this, mapping to something of that, and binding between two ... It is like: no, it is this set, and that set. An enumerated set is the simplest possible thing. A categoric set, or predicative set, is a bigger notion.

So we can directly write these, and we can directly invoke them. And everyone knows, who works in Clojure, the feeling of this. This is a big deal.

[Time 0:19:57]

slide title: Records / Fields / Product Types

+ Place-oriented programming (PLOP)
+ Even when named fields
  + names not usually first-class indices
  + thus are not functions
+ Product types complect meaning and place

  data Person =
    Person String String Int Float String String

All right. Records, fields, product types, blugh! The stuff you did before you did maps. I will contend: even if they are immutable, this is still place oriented programming. There is a place for the name. There is a place for the address. There is a place for the other thing. This is not a function any more. And in general, because even when the fields are named, and sometimes they are not, if you just have raw product types you have got no names.

But even when the fields are named -- so for instance a Java class, you have got names for your fields -- they are still not first class. You cannot say: given this object and this name, give me the thing. Obviously, you can use Java reflection and make six function calls to get the same effect, but it is not an invokable entity. So they are not functions. You do not get to use your information as a functional mapping.

And a straight product type just completely complects the meaning of things with their position in a list. Now I know Haskell has a record syntax, and I am going to show that. So I am not trying to say they do not have a way to put names on these things. But the fact is, you have to know the second string is different from the first string because, I do not know what. It is not in the types. So this is place oriented programming.

And it matters, right? Because what is the challenge of having a place? There always has to be something in the place, right? There is this big difference between having places, and therefore spaces, and not.

[Time 0:21:50]

slide title: But ...

+ At least records enumerate what's possible
+ maps completely open, no guidance

But -- and of course this is another thing we have to be defensive about -- at least these records, classes, whatever, they enumerate what is possible. We are passing maps around, it is the wild West. It could be anything. How do you know what it is? All I am going to do is debug this thing forever. Maps are too open. There is no guidance. There is no delimiting thing. There is nothing that enumerates the possible herd.

[Time 0:22:20]

slide title: spec/keys

+ independent, reusable attributes, RDF-style

  (spec/def ::make string?)

  (spec/def ::model string?)

  (spec/def ::year (spec/and int? #(>= % 1885)))

+ aggregate to form _schema_

  + information about cars that travels together

  (spec/def ::car (spec/keys :req [::make ::model ::year]))

But of course that is true until you add spec. The idea is that spec is an orthogonal way to add that kind of communication, expression, validation, testing, around statements you would make about your aggregates.

And then we have similar kind of stuff. Of course, it is not the same at all. What we have is RDF-style, independent, reusable attributes, especially when they are namespaced keywords. And we connect them to their range specifications. And they are all by themselves, until we go, in a second step, and we aggregate them when we say: let us take a set of those and name that. And that is our little herd or flock. We are going to group some of them together.

And I would like to call those aggregations schemas. They sort of imply a shape. And we will talk a little bit more about that shape not just being always a list, in a second.

So that is how we can say: this is information about cars that travels together. Car is a spec, or names a spec, which is a keys spec, which means it is just sort of describes the keys that can be present in a map. And there is make, model, and year. So this gives us the same kind of ability to say there is a name for the herd, and there are names for the things that could be part of the information that travels together. So we are sort of drawing a circle around a particular kind of shape. Or we are drawing a shape around the particular set of information.

[Time 0:24:05]

slide title: Optionality and aggregates

+ When something is missing from a set
  + _leave it out!_
+ When something can be missing from a slot
  + make a billion dollar mistake?
  + Maybe sheep?

So now we are at the core question. What do we do when some of the stuff can be missing in a particular usage context? We sort of talked about this before. If we are dealing with maps in Clojure, what do we do if I do not have the street address for some user? What am I going to do? I am just going to leave the key out. I am going to leave it out of the set.

And there is a tremendous benefit from that, because the thing is that in addition to the maps being functions, maps are also self descriptive. You can call "keys" on a map, unlike a function. If you want to know: "what mapping does a function make between X and Y?", the categoric descriptions of it: "takes a string and returns a string", that actually does not really help you understand: "if I gave you this string, what string would I get?" Categoric descriptions do not really tell you what is happening in the function.

[Time 0:25:06]

But maps as functions, you can do that. You can say: "exactly what things can you take?" And "keys" tells you. Exactly what things can you return? "vals" tells you.

So this enumerability is super important, which is why you do not want junk empty keys in your maps. You want to leave it out. That way the map can tell you: I do not know the last name, or the address. I do not know that. The maps know what they know. That sheep is missing today. It was sick. It stayed in the barn, not out in the field. I do not have to worry about it. It is not like: where is Fred sheepy? Just "not present". It does not help me. Now I am anxious, right? Should I have Fred sheepy?

What about slots? Now you have a problem. You have those boxes. We saw the sheep in the boxes. If you have places, you have to have something in the place. These languages pride themselves on not having uninitialized memory. Because in the old C days, you could just do nothing, and have at it. When you try to touch it, it will definitely blow up, spectacularly.

But in the area of no uninitialized memory, then you have to have something to put there. Which means, what are you going to put? You have a couple of choices. You have billion dollar mistakes, which they do not love. Maybe sheep.

So that is the thing. When you say maybe sheep, you know that that is not really a thing.

[Time 0:26:48]

slide title: Context

+ RDF-style attributes are context-free
+ make it clear that Maybe things aren't real
+ e.g. either you know the ::model or not
  + in some context
+ nothing is inherently a Maybe string

  (spec/def ::model (spec/nilable string?))  [strike-through that entire line]

So how do we know it is not a thing? How do we get to: "it is not a thing"? Well I do think that the RDF people -- who are information representation experts, who have been working on that problem for a long time -- really have good ideas. And I think their ideas about properties being independent, and about making declarations about properties, about their ranges, that are independent of how you might ever put them together with other properties to form any kind of aggregate, is a completely sound one.

And when you do that, you realize that you would never say "maybe anything". Because when you are talking about something in isolation, destined to be combined in myriad ways in many different aggregates, to be part of many different herds, who knows that it is maybe? That you might not need it, or will need it, definitely will need it? You cannot decide then, because you know this is a building block. And that is how you know "Maybe" is not a good idea, Maybe types. And I do not care what they are, they are not really a great idea. Especially maybe types now in slots.

[Time 0:28:04]

Because the thing is, there is no such thing as a maybe thing. If names are strings, names are always strings. You either know the name, or you do not know the name. That is an orthogonal idea from "what is a name?" A name is a string. Knowing a name is a different idea. If type systems make you jam those two things together, they are wrong, because they are separate ideas. We would like to keep them separate. We are trying to use our programs to model the world and communicate with each other, and when we communicate with each other you never say "I have got six maybe sheep in my truck". Never ever. Nothing is inherently a maybe string.

So we do not want to do this. And this is actually sort of usage guidance. We do not want to say that a thing is a nilable whatever. Because we do not know where it is going to be used. We would like that to be something that happens later. And it is part of the talk just to talk about this.

[Time 0:29:02]

slide title: Optionality in aggregate schemas

  data Car = Car {make :: String,
      model :: Maybe String, year :: Maybe Int}

  (spec/def ::car (spec/keys :req [::make]
                             :opt [::model ::year]))

+ model and year are optional ...

Let us talk about how we do this, then. I want to contrast these two things. So we have these ideas in both spaces. If you were doing it in Haskell -- and this now shows the record syntax, because they do have names possible. It is just sugar over that product type I showed you before. But we have the same idea. A make is a string. We have a car. It has a make, a model, and a year. And we are saying maybe it has a model, and maybe it has a year.

And in spec we can say the same kind of thing. We say "keys", and we say we require [:req] the make, and that the model and the year are optional [:opt].

There is this word in your head. It is like [sound effect]. It is like The Tell-Tale Heart.

[ "The Tell-Tale Heart" is a short story by Edgar Allan Poe: ]

[Time 0:29:51]

slide title: Optional when?!

+ mistake
+ unlike args/returns, there is no usage context here
+ wrong place for optionality
+ _I made this mistake too in spec_ :(

"When?" When? When? When? When? When?

We do not know the model and the year. When don't we know the model and the year? We do not give you the model and the year. When don't we give you the model and the year? We do not require the model and the year. When don't we require the model and the year? Who knows when?

[ jump back to previous slide ]

When does this say when? This does not say when. This says forever and ever and ever: cars maybe have years and models. There are a lot of times when they do have years and models, and there are other times when I do not care about the years and models. Or I only care about the make and the model, but not the year. Show me everything about Ford Mustangs.

[ jump back forward a slide ]

So this is a mistake. It is a mistake to put optionality in aggregate definitions. There is no usage context. At least when you look at function arguments and returns, you are in a usage context. You are saying "of function foo, it requires these arguments, and it provides this return value". There is like a baked in context in the fact that you are talking about foo's arguments, and foo's return. The context is: when calling foo, this is required and that is not.

[Time 0:31:06]

Making an aggregate definition that you are going to use all over the place -- it may be an argument sometimes. It may be a return sometimes. It may be arguments to five different functions that do different jobs. It is the wrong place for optionality. And I made the same mistake, right?

[ jump back to previous slide ]

I just showed you this. This is not better. This is the same problem. This is not Clojure being better than Haskell, or Kotlin, or Scala, when you put maybe in the definition of a struct or record. This is the same problem. There is no context here, and optionality is context dependent.

[ jump back forward a slide ]

So I know people are wondering: oh, where is spec? When is it going to be finished, or whatever? It is going to be finished when I figure this out.

[Audience laughter]

So last year I had a pang. I saw this. I had seen some people using it. I had done more thinking about it, and I realized that this was not right. And I spent the last year -- in addition to other stuff, like picking out this scarf -- thinking about optionality and how it should work.

And in particular, I saw a lot of people struggling trying to use spec, and when I talk about some of the areas in which things could be better, I think you will all recognize how maybe they have been hard.

[Time 0:32:33]

slide title: What do we want?

+ maximize schema reuse
  + don't want context-driven proliferation
    + yields more code, less reuse
+ support symmetric request / response
  + call partially filled in, get more filled in
+ information-building pipelines
  + many partial information increments

Because a lot of times, you just do not -- I gave it to you and it looked good. And it is good. I am not saying it is bad, but it could be better, especially right in this area.

So what do we want? So it is easy to say that things are wrong. What would be right? Well what we want is to maximize schema reuse. We want to maximize the reusability of the idea of a herd of information that represents a car. The kinds of stuff we might think are interesting about cars include these things. And we are going to give that a name. That helps us communicate. It can help us validate things. It can help us check for errors, even before we get to optional requiredness. There is a lot we can do with that notion.

The other thing that we want is we want to make sure that we do not have a proliferation of different schemas just because the contexts are different. My car for passing to foo. My car for passing to bar. My car that gets returned by baz. We do not want that.

What happens when you do that? Well first of all, besides having a proliferation of types, which -- how many people have worked in typed languages and had a proliferation of types? Yeah, I mean it is like what happens.

[Time 0:33:55]

The problem with that is that is not really helping you. Those names do not help you. And they drive down the reusability of your consuming code. I write some code that deals with my cars. Well my code deals with my cars. And your code deals with your cars. We do not have any code that deals with cars, because we all had to make separate cars, because we all had to make a car that had a different masking of optionality for use in a different context.

So we do not want that. We want to maximize the reuse of the idea of car, or other schemas. Other shapes. The shape is sort of a generic idea. It is not yet instantiated. A schema is a form for a model. It is not the thing. It is sort of like the outline of a thing. The form. That is what schema means.

We want to support a whole bunch of situations. And these are the situations I think people have encountered, and see if you recognize them in trying to apply spec.

For instance, there are many kinds of APIs, especially wire protocols and things like that, that have symmetric request-response specifications, from a schema standpoint. Give me a partially filled in form, I will give you back a more filled in form. That is quite a common thing.

But with spec, if you had to say, well the thing I require is you must give me the id and the database something context, and what I provide will definitely include the names and phone numbers, but maybe not these other things, they were forced to become two different specs. One was the spec for what is required, and the other was a spec for what was provided. And everybody wanted to reuse the specs across those things, and they wrote really goofy predicates inside to try to reuse some stuff.

[Time 0:35:53]

Because you see, the other problem with not being able to reuse: it is a recipe for error. If you have to define car, and I have to define car, well maybe you will call it make and model, and maybe I will call it brand and model. And now we have got no connection, where we absolutely should have had a connection, because we have had to restate the same ideas.

So that is a context. Another context which is quite common is a pipeline of information building. So you think about Ring [see below] request chains and things like that, where each handler can sort of adorn the request with more information, or to fill out default information. Things like that. We have a bunch of handlers that work that way. Well what would the spec be for each stage? Again, it is sort of like an explosion.

[Ring is a Clojure specification and library for dealing with web server requests and responses, that predates the creation of Clojure spec. ]

What we want is the overalla name for the idea of "this herd is coming through", but the herd may start small, and then I walk by with my sheep I added to the herd, and you add your sheep to the herd. We are acquiring information. Acquiring information should not be hard. And we were doing it already in Clojure, and Clojure programs are actually really good at both of these things, but spec was not as good as Clojure was in allowing you to talk about, orthogonally, the information set, the information schema, and the actual requirements and provisions of, for instance, stages in a pipeline.

How many people have felt tension applying spec in these kinds of contexts? Yeah. Eventually, if you get to become -- you are doing more, you will feel this more.

[Time 0:37:36]

slide title: Schemas are deep

+ can nest
  + and thus roots potentially describe trees
+ attribute values can be collections
+ optionality specs should be deep

It is even harder than this, right? Because the thing is, schemas nest. You can have a schema that is an aggregate, and one or more of the things in the aggregate are themselves aggregates. And this is where you truly realize that putting in aggregates is impossibly wrong.

Because essentially, schema means shape. If I give you a schema that says "A B C D" and C and D are themselves "X Y Z", "FOO BAR BAZ", what is the shape? It is not a four thing vector, is it? That shape described by that schema, which has pointers to other aggregates, describes a tree. The shape of the thing is actually a tree. And the thing you get passed will be a tree. And the thing you return will be a tree. It is deep. And it means the optionality spec should be deep.

Because you cannot talk about a tree only by putting annotations on the root. There is no place for it. If I said C has "X Y Z", and you need X, where are you going to put that in a definition of the top? You cannot.

[Time 0:39:07]

slide title: Fixing it

+ split apart _schema_ - shape
+ from _selection_ - what's required / provided in a context

So we want it to be deep. We want this to be deep.

So like all design things, this is just: what was wrong? Two things were combined that should not have been combined. And how do you fix it? You take them apart. The rest of this -- this is all it is. The whole thing is this. You got a dictionary, and the idea of taking things apart, and you are done.

[Audience laughter]

So talking about forms is "schema". Just the overall shape. And then talking about subsets of the schema, subsets of the shape in context is "selection". What things are we going to pick as being required, or as being provided? And we do selections in context. And that gives us this orthogonality, and two things we can combine.

[Time 0:40:01]

slide title: _schema_ - shapes only, no requirements

(s/def ::street string?)
(s/def ::city string?)
(s/def ::state state-code?)
(s/def ::zip int?)
(s/def ::addr (s/schema [[::street ::city ::state ::zip]]))

(s/def ::id int?)
(s/def ::first string?)
(s/def ::last string?)
(s/def ::user (s/schema [[::id ::first ::last ::addr]]))

(get-movie-times user) needs ::id and ::zip
(place-order user ...) needs first, last and full address
optionality specs in top level alone can't express these

So let us look at how we would do this. So we have this schema. This is shapes only. This is pseudo future code. And the idea here is that this does not imply required or optional at all. That is not what it is talking about. It is only talking about: in this herd, we can have sheep, and we do not have helicopters. That is the idea. We are just talking about that.

So we can have an idea of an address that has a street, a city, a state, and a zip. I am not advocating any of these things as canonic whatever, and I know zip codes are hard, and blah blah blah. So we say street describes its range, city describes its range, etc. etc. So state has an arbitrary predicate "state-code?" They are a thing. Zip code could be its own function, right?

And then address is a schema that says: you could have streets or cities or states or zips in addresses. That is all that says. And that is a useful thing to be able to say, and to name.

And then we have a user. We have a user in our system. People make systems with users all the time. And so a user has an id, a first and last name, or can have an id, a first name, and last name, and an address. So we are going to define new attributes for id, first name, and last name, and then we are going to say user could have id, first name, last name, or address, which was the other aggregate. So this describes a little tree.

[Time 0:41:38]

Now we have some imaginary usage contexts. So maybe we are building a system. We have users in our system, and our system can let you get movie times, and it lets you buy popcorn.

So "get-movie-times" -- in order to give you the movie times, I need, or want to see, your user id and your zip code. That is all I need. I am going to use that, and I am going to go find the stuff. So I want a user to be passed, but all I need to know about it are these two things.

Now the user id is up high in the root definition of user, but the zip code is an attribute of the address of a user, inside a nested aggregate, further down the tree.

What about placing orders? Placing an order, I want to see your first and last name, and I am going to ship it to you, so I need your whole address.

So these are both functions of users that have different requirements, in different contexts. These are the kinds of things we want to model. The important thing is that there is no way, there is no optionality spec at the top level, that can represent saying these things. You cannot say it, which means nobody can say it.

We just had a GraphQL talk. Guess who cannot say it? Yeah. But you will be the first to be able to say it. This will be awesome.

[Time 0:43:06]

slide title: [None]

(get-movie-times user =>
  (s/select ::user [::id ::addr {::addr [::zip]}]))
               +------------------------  reusing schema in
                                  ------  different contexts
(place-order user =>             /
  (s/select ::user  <------------
            [::first ::last ::addr
	     {::addr [::street ::city ::state ::zip]}]))

+ _select_ - deep requirements
  + still an open system, can have more
+ separates requiring attr from reqs _of_ attr
+ can spec into members of colls
+ syntax TBD

So how will this work? And again, this is not syntax yet. But imagine you could say that the spec for user will be this "selection". It will say: from the herd user, from the shape, the schema, user, I am interested, and I must have, the id and the address. And of the address, I need the zip code.

And then to place an order, we are saying again, I am interested in user information here. This is what I am expecting to see. And I need the first and last name, and the address, and from the address I need the whole thing: street, city, state, and zip.

This "select" notion is a deep requirements thing. If you have ever used Datomic pull, this should smell like some pizza. It is a similar pizza. You need a language for talking about trees and recursion, and things like that.

So this separates requiring the attribute, from the requirements of an attribute. You saw address, and then zip of address. That seems like, what? Why do I have to say that? That is like four more characters. This is so hard.

[Time 0:44:25]

But it ends up, they are different things, because there are definitely contexts in which you say: addresses are optional, but if you give me an address, you have to give me a whole address. Those are two different ideas. I need an address, or: I do not need an address, but when you give me addresses, I need this part. Those are two separate things, so they are said separately in this model. Does that make sense? OK.

And this allows you to spec into members of a collection, because that is what you need. What you are actually accepting as an argument is a tree implied by the schema. It is the whole tree. The context specifications you need to supply have to be about the whole tree.

Because otherwise, how are you going to compose this? If you need different fractions of addresses in different contexts. Think about the explosion. The combinatorial explosion of root things with different kinds of nested things, so that the roots could have the right stuff. You just cannot do this job on the aggregates themselves. You have to be able to talk about the trees. It just took a long time to figure out.

[Time 0:45:40]

The other thing that this will be able to do, that I am not showing on this slide, is to spec into members of collections. So sometimes you will say: the spec for something will be "I have friends". And then friends is a collection of person, and persons have whatever. And so you want to be able to say: of every friend you are telling me about, for each friend, I need this information. So to be able to spec not only into nested schemas, but also nested collections of things. So you will be able to talk down into nested schemas, as well as each member of a nested collection.

This is the kind of power you need to apply spec really everywhere, because obviously function it [TBD] data in and out is one thing. And it gets pretty complex, but how many people use spec for wire stuff, and APIs, and things like that? It is definitely intended to be used there. That is part of the value proposition of it. Those kinds of things definitely need this kind of stuff. So I am really happy about being able to go there.

[Time 0:46:52]

slide title: Don't repress me, man!

  (s/select ::user)

+ This (no requirements) is ok!
+ Why bother?
  + communication
  + test generation

What about this? Is this saying anything? You are not forcing me to do anything. Where is the fun in that? What are the points of types, if you are not forcing some thing?

Well there are two good reasons. So anyway, this is going to be OK. You are just saying: what I expect to see is user information.

And the thing also to remember about these selects: this is just minimal requirements. You can always have more stuff. You can have way more stuff coming in. There may be more stuff coming back. And there may be stuff not in user. Spec is an open system. Having more is OK. I am not going to help you write closed, brittle, breaking systems. I am not going to do it no matter how much you complain on Twitter.

[Audience laughter]

It is not going to happen. It is just not going to happen. So this is like minimal requirements, minimal provision. It is not a boundary around things.

So saying this just says: I have an expectation of seeing user data, stuff from the user flock. I want to see sheep. I do not want to see helicopters. Or, I cannot do anything with helicopters. I am expecting sheep. You could send me a helicopter, and maybe my job is to pass it along to the next thing, which is going to air lift the sheep to somebody else. That is not what I do, but they do it.

[Time 0:48:27]

I think that that is an important part of making flexible systems: that you can flow information through things that just do not even know it is happening. That is important. That is how transportation networks are built. You cannot not have that. You cannot have trucks that only hold certain kinds of things that run on roads that only hold trucks of certain kinds of things. The world does not work that way.

So why would you say something like this? It helps you communicate. The user gets a sense of: what am I supposed to pass? Or what will I get? And it will help us with test generation. Your function does expect to see user data. I will generate tests that give you user data. And in this case, various random subsets of anything that a user could, that is implied by user, deeply down the tree. Which we already do the trees, and all that work.

And that is another part of why this makes sense. When we generate user stuff, we do not generate roots only. We generate trees, right? We go down into the nested specs. And if they are collections, we generate down into those. This lack of symmetry between selection and generation, that was a warning sign.

[Time 0:49:42]

[Figure showing attributes near the top, schemas in the middle, and
selections near the bottom, with many boxes and arrows between them.]

00.49.42 Attributes, Schemas, and Selections

Is that super tiny? It does not really matter. It is exactly what I was talking about before, so you do not need to read the text in the boxes. This is still the same users and addresses, and whatnot.

But what I am trying to show here is the split. We start with RDF style attribute, and they map to RDF properties. Definitions that describe their own ranges. They are just floating around, waiting to be gathered up in herds, and herded around in your programs.

And you can gather them up, and of course that creates other attributes, which point to the gatherings, the aggregates. But we are going to call those schemas. They still do not have any requirement/provision sub-setting.

And then finally we have selections, which you will tend to use only at the edges of usage contexts. It is unlikely, although it will not be impossible, for you to make named specs that point to selections, but I will probably prohibit nested selections, because then you are just back to the thing I just fixed. I do not want to let you make that, and do it to yourself. But it would fall out of this being fully general that you could, so we will probably close that door.

So now you have these separate ideas, which are the way you think about things anyway, but now you get to say it the way you think about it. And this is going to make systems a lot more reusable.

[Time 0:51:27]

slide title: Coming up

+ this _schema_ / _select_ work replacing _keys_
+ better programmatic manipulation of specs
+ refined _fn_ specs
  + looking askance at argument-independent return type descriptions

And extensible. That is part of the idea of spec, is that you can make systems that you can change, that you can enhance over time. That is the game. Saying today you could do X or Y, it is not enough. Every program changes. Every program grows. You need the ability to talk about type-like things in ways that are compatible with program evolution. That is the idea behind spec.

So this is coming. Of all of the things we are working on, this one was least far along by Conj, but this is the next thing coming in spec. It will eventually replace keys, but these are obviously two different names, so there may be a migration world where all three names exist.

We also have been working on better programmatic manipulation of specs. If anybody is looking at alpha2 on this pretty cool system, I think, for defining macros on top of multi-methods, which now gives us the sort of intermediate step that is program accessible that does not involve generating the shape of a macro form and eval'ing it, because I know a lot of people want to write programs that write specs. That has room to grow more, but the underpinnings are in that system. Also it is a cool system to make extensible macro libraries, so have a look.

[Time 0:52:54]

And other things I have been thinking about have been refining the function specs. So I am of course very wary right now about any other type system-y gook getting into spec.

And the next thing I was going to work on a year and a half ago in spec was trying to refine the idea of the return specs. I know people are struggling to say: it takes a collection of X, and returns a collection of X. This kind of thing you would say with parameterized types. The amazing type signature for "reverse". It takes a list of A and returns a list of A.

And the problem is: when A is predicative, that is harder to say. But there is a bigger problem: it is pointless to say that. That is not something you want to say. That "reverse" takes a list of A and returns a list of A, it does not communicate anything about what reverse does.

If I asked you what "reverse" did, and you told me that, I would not be happy. If you needed to implement "reverse" and I told you that, you would not be happy, because it does not communicate anything.

What do you want to say about "reverse"? At least you want to say: it reverses the list it was given. So if that list was all of strings, what could you possibly derive using the most basic logic about the return, if what you said was: the stuff that was in the collection that came in. Well you would know if that was all strings, that it would return all strings. The categoric declaration of that is almost information free. You almost always want your return specifications to be dependent on your arguments. In other words, the fn specs. The fn specs are the real deal, because you can derive the trivialities from that.

[Time 0:55:01]

But it also means that you do not need something like parameterization to say: I take a collection. I do not care what it is, but it will satisfy some set of predicates. If I could say I return that same stuff, or a subset of the stuff that you gave me, you would know those same predicates applied. You could use logic to do that. You would not need some icky category language to talk about return types, because it does not really say what is happening at all.

The fact that you return the same stuff, or a subset of the stuff, says way more. And of course then you could do more with spec. You could start talking about what "reverse" actually does. What are the properties of the reversed thing compared to the incoming thing? What did "reverse" do? Which is what fn specs allow you to say.

So I am starting to smell "ret" in fn specs, but I want to make it concise to sort of do something without having to fully define your fn spec, because sometimes that is a challenging thing to do. But the fact is, if you could just say: returns the stuff from the collection it was given, you would be saying more than type systems let you say. And if you cannot say everything about the nature of your algorithm, and all of the transformations, it is OK. You are still adding value. You are still adding rigor to your system. And you are still helping people understand what it does. Maybe it is a combination of a partial specification of the result, and documentation, that helps them totally put it together.

[Time 0:56:38]

Which is another thing I would just sort of say generally about spec is: there is often a desire to completely nail everything down. That is not necessary in a lot of cases. There is a spectrum of what you can communicate. What is straightforward to communicate, and what is not. And all along that spectrum, pretty much after the very first spec step, you are saying more than type systems ever let people say. And you are letting things be tested in an automatic way more than you were ever getting. So do not go crazy if you cannot completely spec the entire nature of your inner algorithm, because sometimes it is challenging.

Other things about making return types talk about the inputs is that a lot of people in spec are struggling with talking about functions that rely on external state. Reifying external state as an additional input, which is what it is, is another thing that I have been thinking about.

So that is really future thinking kind of stuff, but the important thing is: I have been working on spec. New things are coming. They are going to make spec better. We are extremely sensitive to breaking programs that you spec, and making the transition of Clojure's use of the current spec to the next spec straightforward. So we are thinking about those things. And we are working on it.

And that is it!

[Audience applause]

[Time 0:58:11]

You can’t perform that action at this time.