Why does a Turing-complete type system make type checking undecidable? https://composition.al/blog/2017/02/27/why-does-a-turing-complete-type-system-make-type-checking-undecidable/ (Java's type checker is Turing complete!)
Related Posts
Really cute approach to reporting type errors: when there's a type error, show an example of a runtime error that the type check has prevented!
Data-Driven Techniques for Type Error Diagnosis https://escholarship.org/uc/item/59s4h4pv
Playing with optional type signatures in Python, I realise that the return type is the most important to me.
I'd much rather have a function with only a return type instead of a function with only parameter types. It's often quick to add too.
I'm having fun writing a simple type checker, but I'm learning firsthand why syntax-directed checking doesn't work. It prevents inference.
My checker catches real bugs, but it can't handle cases like this:
[1, 2].map(fun(x) { x + 1; })
I think I need bidirectional checking.