Hackle's blog
between the abstractions we want and the abstractions we get.

Check out my workshops at NDC { Minnesota }
Nov 15-16 TypeScript Power Users
Nov 17-18 Simple by Design: Declutter Your Architecture, Code and Test

Types or Operations: keep it closed, or keep it open

Some design decisions are quite simple. For example: keep it open, or keep it closed.

A routine example: if Animal is the base type for Tiger and Cow, then matching on the subtypes (by type or ad-hoc flags) is a bad idea, especially if it appears repeatedly.

fun move(animal: Animal) = when (animal) {
  is Tiger -> do something tiger
  is Cow -> do something cow
  ...
}

On the other hand, if Animal is a union of Tiger | Cow, then using the wild card for pattern matching is an equally bad idea,

match animal with
| Tiger -> something tiger
| _     -> default case 

These are both anti-patterns and for the same reason: they close off what should be open, and open up what should be closed.

The keywords are not to be confused with that of the famous yet vague principle.

Subtyping: Types are Open, operations are Closed

The expression problem tells us this: with subtyping, the types are open, but the operations are closed.

This may be viewed mostly as a restriction of a choice of design, and there are ways to mitigate it; but that's a limited or somewhat dramatised view.

Let's be more specific: it's easier to add new types to a base type, but harder to add new operations - as all subtypes must be updated it becomes a cross-cutting change. (Once again this by Calmarius does a perfect job of comparing this to schema design as for databases. Highly recommended.)

Consider this example in Kotlin,

interface Animal {
    fun makeSound(): String
}

class Tiger : Animal {
    override fun makeSound() = "Roar"
}

class Cow : Animal {
    override fun makeSound() = "Moo"
}

fun act(animal: Animal): String = animal.makeSound()

fun main(args: Array<String>) {
    println(act(Tiger())) // prints "Roar"
}

The key observation here is the animal types are open, as we can add arbitrary number of subtypes of Animal, while it remains unchanged itself; but the operations are closed to its subtypes. (This is checked by upcasting an instance of a subtype, say animal: Tiger to animal: Animal, after that only makeSound() is preserved, see how act is called).

Being "closed" may sound negative, but I assure you it's not. It's a very strong and desirable quality for a design, because it assures us what is KNOWN for certainty. Certainty is good, if not also rare; we should preserve as much of it as possible.

Using our example, for any subtypes of Animal, we should ALWAYS be able to act on the premise that makeSound is available and with a fittingly specialised implementation for each subtype, be it Tiger or Cow. It is nice to be sure of it.

If a new operation is needed, for example Animal.move(), we must open up and modify the Animal interface, which can be hard if the type hierarchy is non-trivial. Or must we?

Not necessarily. There are popular workarounds to this problem. A naive one is to create an independent move function, where we match on the type of the subtypes.

fun move(animal: Animal) = when (animal) {
  is Tiger -> "Complex logic on how a tiger moves"
  is Cow -> "Even more complex logic about cows"
  else -> "..."
}

This can appear in other forms, for example, by keeping a flag in the base class to enable animal.name is "Tiger", or even worse (you tell me why) with a method on the base class, animal.IsTiger() alongside animal.IsCow.

Or one with slightly improved syntax (and syntax only) with an extension function,

fun Animal.move() = when (this) {
    is Tiger -> "Complex logic on how a tiger moves"
    is Cow -> "Even more complex logic about cows"
    else -> "..."
}

These are neat solutions, and would be handy in some scenarios, but they share one major theme in flipping the open / closed quality of the design.

Let's look closer. The move() method can meaningfully account for Tiger and Cow, but not any new Animal; if a Dog type is added, this function must be modified to insert a new is Dog clause, or it falls through to the catch-all else clause, nice, but not always ideal. (Hello Liskov Substitution Principle). In other words, the move() function is closed to new subtypes; but this contradicts the original design, which wants to be open to new subtypes!

So the guarantee of the design is lost; we no longer have the guarantee every subtype of Animal are given a chance to implement a specialised move operation; at least not checked and enforced by the compiler; it's all at the mercy of the programmer - human discipline, the least reliable factor in software engineering (or the universe all together) to keep it up-to-date within the standalone move function. This is clearly undesirable by comparison, and is a poor way to future-proof a solution.

You see, it may be fun to open up what's closed, except the same thing cannot be open or closed at the same time (it's not a cheesy motivational example for quantum mechanics I promise).

So what do we do? I offer no novelty here; the way to go is textbook - bite the bullet, update the base type; the compiler or any decent tooling (IDE, linter) for lack of compilation will force us to do the right things, that is back-filling move into all subtypes.

Question: what if I only want to add move to the cats, Jaguar, Tiger and Leopard? Would it break LSP if it's added to Animal? Answer: yes that would; move should then be added to the Cat type which is a subtype of Animal and base type of the cats. Yes I hear you it's inheritance, as intended, and it's the good kind. If we choose subtyping we will stick with it.

Question: should I not use extension methods at all? Answer: they are sweet things aren't they! But not where we use it to replace or sabotage an existing design based on subtyping.

Unions: Operations are Open, Types are Closed

Modeling with Union types don't exactly suffer from the same issues, but issues of a different kind.

Consider this naive payment type,

data Payment = Cash | Credit { holder::String, account::String }

paymentInfo :: Payment -> String
paymentInfo Credit {holder=h, account=acc} = h ++ " paid with credit card"
paymentInfo Cash = "Paid with cash"

main = do
  putStrLn $ paymentInfo Cash
  putStrLn $ paymentInfo (Credit "Hackle" "secret account")

The same exercise. The types are closed, but operations are open. As said above, it's great to know that the types are closed, because we can safely assume we know all the payment types, Haskell can help us make sure of it.

What could possibly go wrong? Ah, ever so easy.

paymentInfo :: Payment -> String
paymentInfo Credit {holder=h, account=acc} = h ++ " paid with credit card"
paymentInfo _ = "Paid with cash"

This is bad because if we add a Coupon type into data Payment = Cash | Credit { holder::String, account::String } | Coupon, calling paymentInfo(Coupon) will return "Paid with cash".

In other words, paymentInfo is open to new types (let's not say "subtypes") of Payment, but really we want it to be closed! We want to be forced by Haskell to open up this function and modify it. We want the process to be,

Catch-all unifies the problems

You would have noticed both arguments above use else and _ as counter examples, but in essence they are just the same "catch-all". How could that be? It appears as if it's half-open, and half-closed, a strange state in the middle; or such gray-area unifies both approaches, but not necessarily for greater benefits.

Summary

It's a rather plain message: stick through with a design once it's made, don't self-sabotage by opening up what's closed, or close off what's open; although modern languages provide features to do so, and X-language "experts" will make such features and practices look cutting-edge and cool.

A bitter lesson for functional zealots who try to simulate pattern matching with a subtyping - stop trying! it will never work as well as union types. It's fools' gold.