SIP-18 is just another bad idea serving nobody

SIP-18 is a bad idea because it makes awful assumptions about what is in the interest of language newcomers. I have had no shortage of unsolicited advice of how to teach, most of it in layers of wrongness, so I am acutely aware of the sheer quantity of this kind of advice. Please refrain for now. This is only my opinion, because it has been asked of me more than twice.

SIP-18 (and the Scala collections library for that matter) is no different to Haskell’s (dreaded) monomorphism restriction (DMR). The DMR was introduced specifically because of another chronically bold over-estimate of one’s ability to understand the process of learning. It is now an undesired language issue that hinders all users, especially newcomers. In other words, it serves nobody’s interest, hinders everyone’s interest and especially, the interest of those for whom it was meant to serve. You need only spend a short period of time with newcomers to Haskell to be overwhelmed by the prominence of this fact.

I can hear the pragmatists in the background muttering something about trade-offs, not being so extreme and keeping it relevant to the real world and blah blah blah, insert the usual pragmatist bullshit here. There is nothing to be traded off when you offer to take $5 from me for the low cost of $10. Now stop it and get your head out of the clouds so I can talk to you sensibly.

Not only does SIP-18 not help newcomers at all, it helps nobody, hinders everybody and especially newcomers. It is not a trade-off, it is not a good idea; it is simply a bold, severely misguided assertion about how learning takes place – it’s not even an approximation. I have seen only scant pseudo-psychology to support its existence, which obviates its predictable failure.

Hopefully, the Scala guys will work this out, but if Scala’s remarkable precision to repeat historical mistakes is anything to go by, I do not hold high hopes.

Thanks for asking.