.NET (OK, C#) finally gets union types

I love C# the language, but the ecosystem is a ghetto.

What I meant is that I try to be pragmatic when writing applications. Most languages solve most problems with relatively minor differences between them.

Of course, some languages excel in areas few or others do not. When it comes to C#, I struggle to justify when it is the “right tool for the right job.” If I were building a game in Unity, C# makes sense as it’s the only option. But if I were to build, I do not know, a FizzBuzz Widget, why use C# over any other language?

The only answer I can usually come up with is language familiarity. My employer’s answer to that question would be, “Because C# is a Microsoft product.”

Turns out they really want to have plenty of Java development on Azure as well.

That's not the case for some time already, at worst you get similar performance with Java and with a little effort you can get significantly better performance.

msoTriStateMixed applies to aggregates. Eg, text.isBold() can be true, false, or a mix. Partly bold, partly not bold.

msoTriStateToggle isn't a real value but only used as a sort of flag. So eg, text.setBold(tristate), where "Mixed" would be invalid, and "Toggle" would flip the bold-ness of the text.

The msoCTrue one is where it gets really weird, no clue what's that for. I suppose an ill-conceived attempt to support the other way to express True.

True being -1 was a thing in Visual Basic and I suppose by some other Windows stuff. Logic being all the bits are 1.

I honestly don't even remotely understand how you got to that from what I wrote.

Unions already have a definition. You cannot go around claiming that technically unions are not unions (and that "most people don't know" this), because theory X or Y overloads the term union to refer to some unrelated concept. That's fine and well and good, within that theory, but it does not displace the usual CS definition of union. It is a load-bearing definition.

A tagged union is so called because it is a union (overlapping memory) with a field (a tag) containing a discriminator (aka discriminated union). An untagged union is a union without this tag. These terms didn't come out of nowhere. They are transparent descriptors of what's happening.

It doesn't matter whether Haskell is implemented in C or Ruby, and it doesn't matter whether it's functional, object-oriented, or a DSL for modding Elden Ring, none of this changes what a union is. I'm very supportive of type theories exploring the option space for type constructs, but someone's going to have to implement these somehow. Such as with (tagged) unions. You know, that CS concept we have, with a settled and well understood meaning.

To be fair to you, I think you're letting a very narrow definition of 'union' shadow a much more usual and common definition of the word. And that's totally fine if that's the definition pertinent to you and your work, but if that's the case, maybe don't go around pontificating about how most people do not understand unions?

As for performance, in lots of use cases it's not going to be a big deal. If you are super sensitive to performance issues then you can just wait, meanwhile everyone else gets to use the new feature. You have to start somewhere and waiting to satisfy everything usually ends up with doing nothing

    type T1 string
    type T2 string
    type Meh Either<T1, T2>

    # Python
    MyStringBool = Literal("Yes") | Literal("No")

    // TypeScript
    type MyStringBool = "Yes" | "No"

It would seem pretty unnecessary in Haskell, where you can just define whatever types you want without involving strings at all:

    data MyBool = Yes | No

    parseMyBool :: String -> MyBool 
    parseMyBool "Yes" = Yes
    parseMyBool "No" = No
    parseMyBool _ = error "..."

    @type my_bool() :: :yes | :no

    @spec parse_my_bool(String.t()) :: my_bool()
    def parse_my_bool("Yes"), do: :yes
    def parse_my_bool("No"), do: :no
    def parse_my_bool(_), do: throw("...")

The C# unions appear to behave like unions, not disjoint unions.

How? Can you elaborate?

Other than web tech, what actually is expressive enough?

   type Expr =
       | Primitive of int
       | Addition of (Expr * Expr)
       | Subtraction of (Expr * Expr)
       | Negation of Expr

In current C# I usually do something like

public class ApiResponse<T> { public T? Response { get; set; } public bool IsSuccessful { get; set; } public ErrorResponse Error { get; set; } }

This means I have to check that IsSuccessful is true (and/or that Response is not null). But more importantly, it means my imbecile coworkers who never read my documentation need to do so as well otherwise they're going to have a null reference exception in prod because they never actually test their garbage before pushing it to prod. And I get pulled into a 4 hour meeting to debug and solve the issue as a result.

With union types, I can return a union of the types T and ErrorResponse and save myself massive headaches.

As a consumer, you cannot change the methods, but you can add a subtype. When you subtype an abstract class or an interface, the compiler does not let you proceed until you have implemented all the methods.

Discriminated unions are for the exact opposite situation, when you have a fixed set of subtypes, but unbounded set of methods to implement on them. As a consumer, you cannot add a subtype, but you can add a new method. When you write a new method, the compiler does not let you proceed until you have handled all the subtypes.

Good languages should support both!

The best example is abstract syntax trees, the data types that represent expressions and statements in a programming language. "Expression" breaks down into cases: integer literal, string literal, variable name, binary operations like add(expr1,expr2), unary operations like negate(expr), function call(functionName, exprs), etc.

Clearly all of these expression subtypes should belong to a base type `Expression`. But what methods do you put on `Expression`? If you're writing a compiler, you have to walk this syntax tree many times for very different purposes. First you might do a pass on it where you "de-sugar" syntax, then another pass where you type-check it and resolve names in the code, then another pass where you generate assembly code from it. Perhaps your compiler even supports different backends so you have a code-gen path for x86, another for ARM, etc. You'll likely want a pretty-printer so you can do automatic reformatting, maybe you want linting support, etc.

If you look at all those concerns and say that each subtype of `Expression` must implement methods for each one, then you end up with untenable code organization. Every expression subtype now has a huge stack of methods to implement all in one file, dealing with stuff from totally different layers of the compiler. It's a mess.

It's much cleaner to have the "shape" of the expression defined in one place without all that clutter, and then in each of those areas of the code you can write methods that consume expressions however they need, so each of those separate concerns lives in its own silo.

------------------------------------------------

Some real code (but it's F# not C#) to look at.

AST for my SQL dialect: https://github.com/fsprojects/Rezoom.SQL/blob/master/src/Rez... Typechecker code: https://github.com/fsprojects/Rezoom.SQL/blob/master/src/Rez... Backend code that outputs MS TSQL from it: https://github.com/fsprojects/Rezoom.SQL/blob/master/src/Rez...

------------------------------------------------

If you're an old hand at OO you may be familiar with its actual answer to this problem, the "Visitor" pattern. See System.Linq.Expressions.ExpressionVisitor. However, once you've used a language with good union and pattern matching support, this feels like a clunky hack. Basically the mirror image of a language without real object orientation imitating it by passing around closures and structs-of-closures.

------------------------------------------------

It doesn't just have to be compiler stuff. A business app data model can use this too. Instead of having:

    public class DbUser
    {
        public EmailAddress Email { get; set; }
        public PasswordHash? Password { get; set; } // null if they use SSO
        public SamlEntityProviderId? SamlProvider { get; set; } // null if they use password auth
    }

    type UserAuth =
        | PasswordAuth of PasswordHash
        | SSOAuth of SamlIdentityProviderId

1. Argue from ignorance. Never try unions in any other programming languages and completely disallow their use in C# codebases that you participate in.

2. Try them out and adopt an informed opinion.

You may even choose to remain in ignorance until someone wastes their own time trying to convince you. But it isn't my job or desire to teach someone who won't put in the effort to learn for themselves.