The point is to parse the input into a structure which always upholds the predicates you care about so you don't end up continuously defensively programming in ifs and asserts.
The point is to parse the input into a structure which always upholds the predicates you care about so you don't end up continuously defensively programming in ifs and asserts.
I follow "Parse, Don't Validate" consistently in Go. For example, if I need to parse a JSON payload from an end-user for Foo, I define a struct called FooRequest, and I have exactly one function that creates a FooRequest instance, given a JSON stream.
Anywhere else in my application, if I have a FooRequest instance, I know that it's validated and well-formed because it had to have come from my FooRequest parsing function. I don't need sum types or any special language features beyond typing.
> in my mind, the difference between validation and parsing lies almost entirely in how information is preserved
“parse don’t validate” is a pithy and easy to remember maxim for this preservation.
Because validation is implicitly necessary for parsing to a representation which captures your invariants anyway, by banning validation as a separate concept you ensure sole validation doesn’t get reintroduced, because any validation step outside of a wider parsing process is considered incorrect.