Well, the use cases will be there, and any general-purpose language will need answers for them. One can of course achieve the same effect with other language features (e.g. Java's famous use of the "visitor pattern" for those cases), but there's a cost in verbosity and maintainability.
And pattern matching isn't really needed if you have flow typing + OO (at least I haven't found a usecase for pattern matching which crystal doesn't already have an answer to)
Sum types usually only have two or three entries too.
> And pattern matching isn't really needed if you have flow typing + OO (at least I haven't found a usecase for pattern matching which crystal doesn't already have an answer to)
How does "flow typing + OO" solve the problem? You can use OO to emulate pattern matching via the visitor pattern, yes, but that's notoriously cumbersome; I don't see how flow typing makes any difference to that?
Crystal has method overloading (dynamic dispatch), which is a form of pattern matching (but not destructuring) but that's it. So I guess we have pattern matching but definitely not to the extent say haskell or elixir has it.
Visitor pattern in Crystal is just a class with a bunch of `def visit(node : Type)` and then just call `visit(foo)` and let dynamic dispatch handle the rest. The visited data structure has no knowledge about the visitor.
Hmm, I guess flow typing lets you do an exhaustiveness check of an if-else style set of cases. Still seems like a syntactic shortcut would be nice, just as one misses "switch" in Python.
And yeah, nobody has any experience maintaining 300kloc+ systems in crystal. And i'm sure we get loads of things wrong and there are lots of pain points. I hope we find some type theorists to pick through the problems when that happens too, because crystal's type system is really quite different to anything I've ever seen before. And it would be nice to see what comes out of that theory wise.