The Case Against Structural Subtyping … ? My previous post on structural subtyping generated quite a few comments over on reddit. There were a lot of mixed opinions as to the pros and cons of having a [[structural type system]] instead of a [[Nominal typing|nominal type system]]. To help me digest and ponder it all, I thought I’d discuss the main themes here in more detail. Issues I’ll start by looking at the various issues people highlighted with structural subtyping, and provide a few comments of my own later. Programmer Intent . Perhaps the biggest problem raised with structural subtyping is that programmer intent may be lost. In a nominal type system, the names of types captures their intent (to some extent), and the system prevents information flows that don’t make sense. In Java, one might create a class Length with an int amount field, which holds the length in centimeters. In a nominal type system, an instance of a different class (say Time ) which happens to have an int amount field as well, cannot flow into a variable of type Length . Thus, one cannot accidentally mix up lengths and times. With a structural subtyping system, this is not true because an instance of a structure with a field int amount can be used interchangeably as a Length or a Time .

. Perhaps the biggest problem raised with structural subtyping is that programmer intent may be lost. In a nominal type system, the names of types captures their intent (to some extent), and the system prevents information flows that don’t make sense. In Java, one might create a class with an field, which holds the length in centimeters. In a nominal type system, an instance of a different class (say ) which happens to have an field as well, cannot flow into a variable of type . Thus, one cannot accidentally mix up lengths and times. With a structural subtyping system, this is not true because an instance of a structure with a field can be used interchangeably as a or a . Invariants . Another important problem is that structural subtyping makes it harder to enforce invariants over data structures. Suppose we’re implementing a Date class in a language with nominal typing, like Java. We might have fields day , month and year which work as expected. There are several invariants amongst these fields, such as 1 <= day <= 31 and, 1 <= month <= 12 (and these can obviously be refined, e.g. 1 <= day <= 28 if month == 2 ). In a language like Java, we can easily ensure these invariants are enforced by making the fields private and adding specific getters, and setters which specifically check against invalid values. In a structural subtyping system, it’s not clear exactly how one would enforce such invariants and still retain the advantages of structural typing. We can provide some kind of data-hiding mechanism in the language to ensure access to fields is controlled — but this rather defeats the purpose of structural typing as objects are no longer easily interchanged.

. Another important problem is that structural subtyping makes it harder to enforce invariants over data structures. Suppose we’re implementing a class in a language with nominal typing, like Java. We might have fields , and which work as expected. There are several invariants amongst these fields, such as and, (and these can obviously be refined, e.g. ). In a language like Java, we can easily ensure these invariants are enforced by making the fields private and adding specific getters, and setters which specifically check against invalid values. In a structural subtyping system, it’s not clear exactly how one would enforce such invariants and still retain the advantages of structural typing. We can provide some kind of data-hiding mechanism in the language to ensure access to fields is controlled — but this rather defeats the purpose of structural typing as objects are no longer easily interchanged. Performance . Another cited issue with structural subtyping is that it may incur a performance hit. The argument is that, if you cannot determine the static offsets of all fields in a structure, then you are forced to employ some kind of dictionary (i.e. [[hash table]]) lookup on every field access. See my earlier post for more on this problem. Note , this problem is similar, for example, to that of implementing Java interfaces efficiently (see e.g. this).

. Another cited issue with structural subtyping is that it may incur a performance hit. The argument is that, if you cannot determine the static offsets of all fields in a structure, then you are forced to employ some kind of dictionary (i.e. [[hash table]]) lookup on every field access. See my earlier post for more on this problem. , this problem is similar, for example, to that of implementing Java interfaces efficiently (see e.g. this). Error Messages. Generating error messages in a structural type system is something of a challenge. This is because, in general, you can only report the entire structure involved, rather than just report its name (since structures have no name). Comments In my opinion, many of the issues raised above can be adequately resolved with a little bit of care and thought. Let’s consider the easy ones first: Programmer Intent. Whilst I agree this is an issue, units of measure in languages like Java are often passed around simply as int s anyway; also, we can protect ourselves by using more meaningful field names (e.g. amountInCms , instead of amount ) or even by using [[Type system#Existential_types|existential types]] in situations where we are concerned about potential mix ups (see this paper for more).

Whilst I agree this is an issue, units of measure in languages like Java are often passed around simply as s anyway; also, we can protect ourselves by using more meaningful field names (e.g. , instead of ) or even by using [[Type system#Existential_types|existential types]] in situations where we are concerned about potential mix ups (see this paper for more). Performance . Whilst there may be some performance hit, it is likely to be negligible for a well engineered language. In particular, the approach discussed in this post, including the comment made by Daniel Yokomizo will go quite a way towards minimising overhead.

. Whilst there may be some performance hit, it is likely to be negligible for a well engineered language. In particular, the approach discussed in this post, including the comment made by Daniel Yokomizo will go quite a way towards minimising overhead. Error Messages. Whilst I have encountered this problem myself during development of Whiley, I don’t think it is hard to fix. My current solution is to retain nominal information from define statements, and use that purely for error reporting. There are some problematic issues here, however. For example: define T1 as int define T2 as int int f(T1 x, T2 y): if x > y: z = x else: z = y // what nominal info to retain here? return z The problem here is that we want to retain some nominal type information for the variable z — either T1 or T2 . After the if statement, we must either choose one name to retain, or retain both using some kind of union.

A similar issue is that, when variables are assigned raw values there is no possible nominal information we can retain. However, in such circumstances, it’s unlikely that a particularly complex structure is being assigned — meaning the type will be fairly simple anyway, Now, the issue of maintaing invariants in a structural subtyping system appears (to me at least) to be the hardest of all. Here’s my take on it: Invariants. One obvious approach here is to use some kind of [[Type system#Existential_types|existential type]] to implement information hiding (again, see this paper for more on this). What this does, is to provide a mechanism whereby we can hide the fields for part or all a record. This means the fields require getters and setters, and invariants can be enforced through them (i.e. in exactly the same way as for a nominal type system; indeed, the only real advantage of using existential types over nominal types here is that we can expose some parts of a record and they will then be structurally subtyped). Neither of these two solutions are really satisfying for me! Now, all of this discussion (from my perspective at least) is in the context of the Whiley language. The aim of this language is to make invariants first-class entities which are checked at compile-time by the compiler. In such a setting, the invariants can be explicitly written as part of the structural type, thereby eliminating this problem altogether! For example, with the Date class from before, we might have: define Date as { int day,int month,int year } where 0<=day && day<=31 && 0<=month && month<=12 && ... The beauty of this, is that we can now only interchange Date s with structures that have suitable invariants as well. However, the invariants need not match exactly. For example: // a date with no invariant define DumbDate as { int day, int month, int year } // a date in Februrary define FebDate as Date where $.month == 2 DumbDate f(Date x): return x DumbDate g(FebDate y): return f(y) Here, we see that records can flow into variables requiring structural subtypes with invariants which are no stricter. This gives an interesting advantage over the nominal type solution to this problem… Righto, that’s enough thinking for now!! Leave a Reply