Type-Driven Design

Layer 1: Language Mechanics

Core Question

How can the type system prevent invalid states?

Before reaching for runtime checks:

• Can the compiler catch this error?
• Can invalid states be unrepresentable?
• Can the type encode the invariant?

Error → Design Question

Thinking Prompt

Before adding runtime validation:

1. Can the type encode the constraint?

- Numeric range → bounded types or newtypes - Valid states → type state pattern - Semantic meaning → newtype

1. When is validation possible?

- At construction → validated newtype - At state transition → type state - Only at runtime → Result with clear error

1. Who needs to know the invariant?

- Compiler → type-level encoding - API users → clear type signatures - Runtime only → documentation

Trace Up ↑

When type design is unclear:

"Need to validate email format"
    ↑ Ask: Is this a domain value object?
    ↑ Check: m09-domain (Email as Value Object)
    ↑ Check: domain-* (validation requirements)

Trace Down ↓

From design to implementation:

"Need type-safe wrapper for primitives"
    ↓ Newtype: struct UserId(u64);

"Need compile-time state validation"
    ↓ Type State: Connection<Connected>

"Need to track phantom type parameters"
    ↓ PhantomData: PhantomData<T>

"Need capability markers"
    ↓ Marker Trait: trait Validated {}

"Need gradual construction"
    ↓ Builder: Builder::new().field(x).build()

Quick Reference

Pattern Examples

Newtype

struct Email(String);  // Not just any string

impl Email {
    pub fn new(s: &str) -> Result<Self, ValidationError> {
        // Validate once, trust forever
        validate_email(s)?;
        Ok(Self(s.to_string()))
    }
}

Type State

struct Connection<State>(TcpStream, PhantomData<State>);

struct Disconnected;
struct Connected;
struct Authenticated;

impl Connection<Disconnected> {
    fn connect(self) -> Connection<Connected> { ... }
}

impl Connection<Connected> {
    fn authenticate(self) -> Connection<Authenticated> { ... }
}

Decision Guide

Anti-Patterns

Related Skills