洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee)

@hongminhee@hackers.pub · 346 following · 230 followers

Hi, I'm who's behind Fedify, Hollo, BotKit, and this website, Hackers' Pub!

Fedify, Hollo, BotKit, 그리고 보고 계신 이 사이트 Hackers' Pub을 만들고 있습니다.

Fedify、Hollo、BotKit、そしてこのサイト、Hackers' Pubを作っています。

嗨，我是 Fedify、Hollo、BotKit 以及這個網站 Hackers' Pub 的開發者！

Website
hongminhee.org
GitHub
@dahlia
Hollo
@hongminhee@hollo.social
DEV
@hongminhee
velog
@hongminhee
Qiita
@hongminhee
Zenn
@hongminhee
Matrix
@hongminhee:matrix.org
X
@hongminhee
Woojin Kim @me@hollo.woojinkim.org
Public
Shared by 洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee)

깃에 대형 바이너리 파일을 다루려고 LFS를 붙이고 나서 예상한 동작이지만 이게 맞나? 싶었던게 한 브랜치에서 바이너리 파일에 락을 걸면 모든 브랜치에 있는 같은 파일에 락이 걸림. 이게 의도한 동작이긴 한데 근본적으로 깃의 dvcs 개념을 망가뜨리는 거잖음? 그래서 깃에 LFS를 붙인 결과는 예상대로 동작하기는 하지만 깃 기반으로 사용하면 안된다고 생각하기로 함.

0
0
1
0
1
0
wakest ⁂ @liaizon@social.wake.st
Public
Shared by 洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee)

Theres a new interview with @hongminhee洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) (of @fedifyFedify: an ActivityPub server framework, @hollo, and now fame). It's in with Korean subtitles but quite readable with YouTube's autogenerated English subs.

youtube.com/watch?v=sqxR8zscSD

hollo.social/@hongminhee/0195a

우리의 코드를 찾아서 – 2막. 민희님과 Fedify & Hollo 알아보기

ActivityPub를 위시한 페디버스 생태계에서 동작하는 연합 서버 앱을 빌드하기 위한 TypeScript 라이브러리인 Fedify와 이 플랫폼 상에서 동작하는 개인용 마이크로 블로그 Hollo에 대해 제작자인 홍민희님과 함께 알아보았습니다.– 페디파이 홈페이지: https://...

www.youtube.com · YouTube

1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
bgl gwyng @bgl@hackers.pub
Public
Shared by 洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee)

그동안(10+년;;) git이 엄청 잘만든 물건 같지는 않다고 생각하며 대충 쓰고있었는데, 요즘 branch 개념 자체가 근본적인 실수란 생각이 들기 시작했다. branch 대신에 변경의 시작과 끝, 양 끝점을 가지는 interval을 쓰는게 맞는거 같다(카테고리 이론의 작은 교훈: primitive는 양 끝점을 가지는게 좋다).

git을 쓰면 히스토리 길어진다고 squash merge 등을 하는데, (나도 하지만) 사실 기껏 만들어놓은 히스토리를 뭉개버리는 말도 안되는 동작이다. 만약 interval을 쓴다면 히스토리는 그대로 남기고 UI 단에서 fold/unfold 등을 해줄수 있을 것이다.

Darcs 등이 interval에 기초하는데, 지금은 일이 너무 바빠서 시도할 여유가 없다. 한번 숨고를 시간이 주어지면 멀쩡한 VCS를 탐색하는 시간을 가질것이다.

0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
김무훈 @iamuhun@hackers.pub
Public
Shared by 洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee)

해커펍은 퍼머링크로 아카이빙 참조하기 최적이라 생각해서 앞으로 기술을 다루며 기록 및 참조하는 용도로 잘 사용하려고 합니다.

트위터는 나중에 다른 사람에게 보여줄 참조용으로 쓰기에는 너무 정보 대비 소음이 많은 특성 때문에 잘 맞지 않는다고 생각합니다.

0
0
2
0
0
0
洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) @hongminhee@hackers.pub
Public

📢 Hackers' Pub 초대 시스템 오픈!

Hackers' Pub에 초대 시스템이 적용되었습니다. 이제 설정 → 초대 페이지에서 지인들을 초대할 수 있습니다.

주요 내용:

  • 초대장 3장 지급: 기존 회원분들께 3장의 초대장이 지급되었습니다.
  • 초대 방법: 설정 → 초대 페이지에서 초대 링크를 생성하여 공유하거나, 이메일 주소를 입력하여 초대할 수 있습니다.
  • 추가 초대: 초대장은 향후 비정기적으로 추가될 예정입니다.
  • 자동 팔로: 초대자와 피초대자는 자동으로 상호 팔로됩니다. (언팔로 가능.)

Hackers' Pub의 퀄리티를 유지하고, 더욱 풍성한 기술 논의를 위해 신중한 초대를 부탁드립니다.

궁금한 점이나 건의사항은 답글로 남겨주세요.

Hackers' Pub 커뮤니티 성장에 많은 참여 부탁드립니다!

Hackers' Pub 웹사이트의 설정 메뉴에서 “초대 (3)”이 선택된 화면입니다. 페이지 제목은 “Hackers' Pub에 친구를 초대하세요. 현재 3장의 초대장이 남아 있습니다”로 표시되어 있습니다. 아래에는 이메일 주소를 입력하는 필드와 “이메일 주소는 초대장을 받을 때 뿐만 아니라, 계정에 로그인 할 때도 사용됩니다”라는 안내 문구가 있습니다. 그 아래에는 “추가 메시지”라는 제목의 텍스트 영역과 “초대장을 받는 친구가 볼 수 있는 메시지입니다”라는 설명이 있습니다. 하단에는 “초대장 보내기” 버튼과 “초대한 사람” 목록이 표시되어 있으며, “洪 民意 (Hong Minhee) (@hongminhee@hackers.pub)”라는 이름과 아이디가 적혀 있습니다.
洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) @hongminhee@hackers.pub
Public

📢 Hackers' Pub 招待システムオープン！

Hackers' Pub に招待システムが適用されました。これで設定→招待ページから知人を招待できます。

主な内容：

  • 招待状3枚支給：既存会員の皆様には3枚の招待状が支給されました。
  • 招待方法：設定→招待ページで招待リンクを作成して共有するか、メールアドレスを入力して招待できます。
  • 追加招待：招待状は今後不定期に追加される予定です。
  • 自動フォロー：招待者と被招待者は自動的に相互フォローされます。（フォロー解除可能）

Hackers' Pub のクオリティを維持し、より豊かな技術議論のために慎重な招待をお願いいたします。

ご不明な点やご要望は、この投稿への返信としてお寄せください。

Hackers' Pub コミュニティの成長にご協力をお願いいたします！

Hackers' Pub ウェブサイトの設定メニューにある「招待 (3)」が選択された状態のスクリーンショットです。ページ上部には「友達を Hackers' Pub に招待しましょう。最大 3 人まで招待できます」というテキストが表示されています。その下には、「メールアドレス」とラベル付けされた入力フィールドがあり、「メールアドレスは招待状を受け取るだけでなく、アカウントへのログインにも使用されます」という説明文が続いています。さらに下には、「追加メッセージ」というラベルの付いたテキストエリアと、「友達は招待メールでこのメッセージを見ることができます」という説明があります。ページ下部には「招待状を送る」というボタンと、「招待者」というセクションがあり、「洪 民意 (Hong Minhee) (@hongminhee@hackers.pub)」という名前とユーザー名が表示されています。
1
0
洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) @hongminhee@hackers.pub
Public

📢 Hackers' Pub 초대 시스템 오픈!

Hackers' Pub에 초대 시스템이 적용되었습니다. 이제 설정 → 초대 페이지에서 지인들을 초대할 수 있습니다.

주요 내용:

  • 초대장 3장 지급: 기존 회원분들께 3장의 초대장이 지급되었습니다.
  • 초대 방법: 설정 → 초대 페이지에서 초대 링크를 생성하여 공유하거나, 이메일 주소를 입력하여 초대할 수 있습니다.
  • 추가 초대: 초대장은 향후 비정기적으로 추가될 예정입니다.
  • 자동 팔로: 초대자와 피초대자는 자동으로 상호 팔로됩니다. (언팔로 가능.)

Hackers' Pub의 퀄리티를 유지하고, 더욱 풍성한 기술 논의를 위해 신중한 초대를 부탁드립니다.

궁금한 점이나 건의사항은 답글로 남겨주세요.

Hackers' Pub 커뮤니티 성장에 많은 참여 부탁드립니다!

Hackers' Pub 웹사이트의 설정 메뉴에서 “초대 (3)”이 선택된 화면입니다. 페이지 제목은 “Hackers' Pub에 친구를 초대하세요. 현재 3장의 초대장이 남아 있습니다”로 표시되어 있습니다. 아래에는 이메일 주소를 입력하는 필드와 “이메일 주소는 초대장을 받을 때 뿐만 아니라, 계정에 로그인 할 때도 사용됩니다”라는 안내 문구가 있습니다. 그 아래에는 “추가 메시지”라는 제목의 텍스트 영역과 “초대장을 받는 친구가 볼 수 있는 메시지입니다”라는 설명이 있습니다. 하단에는 “초대장 보내기” 버튼과 “초대한 사람” 목록이 표시되어 있으며, “洪 民意 (Hong Minhee) (@hongminhee@hackers.pub)”라는 이름과 아이디가 적혀 있습니다.
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) @hongminhee@hackers.pub
Public

Hackers' Pub의 숨겨진 기능 중 하나. Markdown에서 TeX 수식을 쓸 수 있습니다. 다음과 같이 $ 사이에 TeX 수식을 넣으면 됩니다.

수식 테스트: $V_{sphere} = \frac{4}{3}\pi r^3$

아래처럼 표시됩니다.

수식 테스트: Vsphere=43πr3V_{sphere} = \frac{4}{3}\pi r^3

0
0
洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) @hongminhee@hackers.pub
Public

Hackers' Pub의 숨겨진 기능 중 하나. Markdown에서 TeX 수식을 쓸 수 있습니다. 다음과 같이 $ 사이에 TeX 수식을 넣으면 됩니다.

수식 테스트: $V_{sphere} = \frac{4}{3}\pi r^3$

아래처럼 표시됩니다.

수식 테스트: Vsphere=43πr3V_{sphere} = \frac{4}{3}\pi r^3

3
0
Jaeyeol Lee @kodingwarrior@hackers.pub
Public
Shared by 洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee)

https://github.com/dahlia/hackerspub/pull/12

해커스펍의 멘션 기능에 가독성 개선이 필요할 것 같아서 제안하는 느낌으로 PR은 올렸는데, 다른 분들도 어떤 의견을 가지고 계실지 모르겠다

Current Situation (As-is) Because of the user’s thumbnail image, it’s not immediately clear where the mention ends and the message begins. Proposed Improvement (To-be) To improve clarity, we should...

[Suggestion] Enhance mention's markup by malkoG · Pull Request #12 · dahlia/hackerspub

Current Situation (As-is) Because of the user’s thumbnail image, it’s not immediately clear where the mention ends and the message begins. Proposed Improvement (To-be) To improve clarity, we should...

github.com · GitHub

0
0
0
0

유루메 Yurume replied to the below article:

Revisiting Java's Checked Exceptions: An Underappreciated Type Safety Feature

洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) @hongminhee@hackers.pub

Despite their bad reputation in the Java community, checked exceptions provide superior type safety comparable to Rust's Result<T, E> or Haskell's Either a b—we've been dismissing one of Java's best features all along.

Introduction

Few features in Java have been as consistently criticized as checked exceptions. Modern Java libraries and frameworks often go to great lengths to avoid them. Newer JVM languages like Kotlin have abandoned them entirely. Many experienced Java developers consider them a design mistake.

But what if this conventional wisdom is wrong? What if checked exceptions represent one of Java's most forward-thinking features?

In this post, I'll argue that Java's checked exceptions were ahead of their time, offering many of the same type safety benefits that are now celebrated in languages like Rust and Haskell. Rather than abandoning this feature, we should consider how to improve it to work better with modern Java's features.

Understanding Java's Exception Handling Model

To set the stage, let's review how Java's exception system works:

  • Unchecked exceptions (subclasses of RuntimeException or Error): These don't need to be declared or caught. They typically represent programming errors (NullPointerException, IndexOutOfBoundsException) or unrecoverable conditions (OutOfMemoryError).

  • Checked exceptions (subclasses of Exception but not RuntimeException): These must either be caught with try/catch blocks or declared in the method signature with throws. They represent recoverable conditions that are outside the normal flow of execution (IOException, SQLException).

Here's how this works in practice:

// Checked exception - compiler forces you to handle or declare it
public void readFile(String path) throws IOException {
    Files.readAllLines(Path.of(path));
}

// Unchecked exception - no compiler enforcement
public void processArray(int[] array) {
    int value = array[array.length + 1]; // May throw ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
}

The Type Safety Argument for Checked Exceptions

At their core, checked exceptions are a way of encoding potential failure modes into the type system via method signatures. This makes certain failure cases part of the API contract, forcing client code to explicitly handle these cases.

Consider this method signature:

public byte[] readFileContents(String filePath) throws IOException

The throws IOException clause tells us something critical: this method might fail in ways related to IO operations. The compiler ensures you can't simply ignore this fact. You must either:

  1. Handle the exception with a try-catch block
  2. Propagate it by declaring it in your own method signature

This type-level representation of potential failures aligns perfectly with principles of modern type-safe programming.

Automatic Propagation: A Hidden Advantage

One often overlooked advantage of Java's checked exceptions is their automatic propagation. Once you declare a method as throws IOException, any exception that occurs is automatically propagated to the caller without additional syntax.

Compare this with Rust, where you must use the ? operator every time you call a function that returns a Result:

// Rust requires explicit propagation with ? for each call
fn read_and_process(path: &str) -> Result<(), std::io::Error> {
    let content = std::fs::read_to_string(path)?;
    process_content(&content)?;
    Ok(())
}

// Java automatically propagates exceptions once declared
void readAndProcess(String path) throws IOException {
    String content = Files.readString(Path.of(path));
    processContent(content); // If this throws IOException, it's automatically propagated
}

In complex methods with many potential failure points, Java's approach leads to cleaner code by eliminating the need for repetitive error propagation markers.

Modern Parallels: Result Types in Rust and Haskell

The approach of encoding failure possibilities in the type system has been adopted by many modern languages, most notably Rust with its Result<T, E> type and Haskell with its Either a b type.

In Rust:

fn read_file_contents(file_path: &str) -> Result<Vec<u8>, std::io::Error> {
    std::fs::read(file_path)
}

When calling this function, you can't just ignore the potential for errors—you need to handle both the success case and the error case, often using the ? operator or pattern matching.

In Haskell:

readFileContents :: FilePath -> IO (Either IOException ByteString)
readFileContents path = try $ BS.readFile path

Again, the caller must explicitly deal with both possible outcomes.

This is fundamentally the same insight that motivated Java's checked exceptions: make failure handling explicit in the type system.

Valid Criticisms of Checked Exceptions

If checked exceptions are conceptually similar to these widely-praised error handling mechanisms, why have they fallen out of favor? There are several legitimate criticisms:

1. Excessive Boilerplate in the Call Chain

The most common complaint is the boilerplate required when propagating exceptions up the call stack:

void methodA() throws IOException {
    methodB();
}

void methodB() throws IOException {
    methodC();
}

void methodC() throws IOException {
    // Actual code that might throw IOException
}

Every method in the chain must declare the same exception, creating repetitive code. While automatic propagation works well within a method, the explicit declaration in method signatures creates overhead.

2. Poor Integration with Functional Programming

Java 8 introduced lambdas and streams, but checked exceptions don't play well with them:

// Won't compile because map doesn't expect functions that throw checked exceptions
List<String> fileContents = filePaths.stream()
    .map(path -> Files.readString(Path.of(path))) // Throws IOException
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

This forces developers to use awkward workarounds:

List<String> fileContents = filePaths.stream()
    .map(path -> {
        try {
            return Files.readString(Path.of(path));
        } catch (IOException e) {
            throw new UncheckedIOException(e); // Wrap in an unchecked exception
        }
    })
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

3. Interface Evolution Problems

Adding a checked exception to an existing method breaks all implementing classes and calling code. This makes evolving interfaces over time difficult, especially for widely-used libraries and frameworks.

4. Catch-and-Ignore Anti-Pattern

The strictness of checked exceptions can lead to the worst possible outcome—developers simply catching and ignoring exceptions to make the compiler happy:

try {
    // Code that might throw
} catch (Exception e) {
    // Do nothing or just log
}

This is worse than having no exception checking at all because it provides a false sense of security.

Improving Checked Exceptions Without Abandoning Them

Rather than abandoning checked exceptions entirely, Java could enhance the existing system to address these legitimate concerns. Here are some potential improvements that preserve the type safety benefits while addressing the practical problems:

1. Allow lambdas to declare checked exceptions

One of the biggest pain points with checked exceptions today is their incompatibility with functional interfaces. Consider how much cleaner this would be:

// Current approach - forced to handle or wrap exceptions inline
List<String> contents = filePaths.stream()
    .map(path -> {
        try {
            return Files.readString(Path.of(path));
        } catch (IOException e) {
            throw new RuntimeException(e);
        }
    })
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

// Potential future approach - lambdas can declare exceptions
List<String> contents = filePaths.stream()
    .map((String path) throws IOException -> Files.readString(Path.of(path)))
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

This would require updating functional interfaces to support exception declarations:

@FunctionalInterface
public interface Function<T, R, E extends Exception> {
    R apply(T t) throws E;
}

2. Generic exception types in throws clauses

Another powerful enhancement would be allowing generic type parameters in throws clauses:

public <E extends Exception> void processWithException(Supplier<Void, E> supplier) throws E {
    supplier.get();
}

This would enable much more flexible composition of methods that work with different exception types, bringing some of the flexibility of Rust's Result<T, E> to Java's existing exception system.

3. Better support for exception handling in functional contexts

Unlike Rust which requires the ? operator for error propagation, Java already automatically propagates checked exceptions when declared in the method signature. What Java needs instead is better support for checked exceptions in functional contexts:

// Current approach for handling exceptions in streams
List<String> contents = filePaths.stream()
    .map(path -> {
        try {
            return Files.readString(Path.of(path));
        } catch (IOException e) {
            throw new RuntimeException(e); // Lose type information
        }
    })
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

// Hypothetical improved API
List<String> contents = filePaths.stream()
    .mapThrowing(path -> Files.readString(Path.of(path))) // Preserves checked exception
    .onException(IOException.class, e -> logError(e))
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

4. Integration with Optional<T> and Stream<T> APIs

The standard library could be enhanced to better support operations that might throw checked exceptions:

// Hypothetical API
Optional<String> content = Optional.ofThrowable(() -> Files.readString(Path.of("file.txt")));
content.ifPresentOrElse(
    this::processContent,
    exception -> log.error("Failed to read file", exception)
);

Comparison with Other Languages' Approaches

It's worth examining how other languages have addressed the error handling problem:

Rust's Result<T, E> and ? operator

Rust's approach using Result<T, E> and the ? operator shows how propagation can be made concise while keeping the type safety benefits. The ? operator automatically unwraps a successful result or returns the error to the caller, making propagation more elegant.

However, Rust's approach requires explicit propagation at each step, which can be more verbose than Java's automatic propagation in certain scenarios.

Kotlin's Approach

Kotlin made all exceptions unchecked but provides functional constructs like runCatching that bring back some type safety in a more modern way:

val result = runCatching {
    Files.readString(Path.of("file.txt"))
}

result.fold(
    onSuccess = { content -> processContent(content) },
    onFailure = { exception -> log.error("Failed to read file", exception) }
)

This approach works well with Kotlin's functional programming paradigm but lacks compile-time enforcement.

Scala's Try[T], Either[A, B], and Effect Systems

Scala offers Try[T], Either[A, B], and various effect systems that encode errors in the type system while integrating well with functional programming:

import scala.util.Try

val fileContent: Try[String] = Try {
  Source.fromFile("file.txt").mkString
}

fileContent match {
  case Success(content) => processContent(content)
  case Failure(exception) => log.error("Failed to read file", exception)
}

This approach preserves type safety while fitting well with Scala's functional paradigm.

Conclusion

Java's checked exceptions were a pioneering attempt to bring type safety to error handling. While the implementation has shortcomings, the core concept aligns with modern type-safe approaches to error handling in languages like Rust and Haskell.

Copying Rust's Result<T, E> might seem like the obvious solution, but it would represent a radical departure from Java's established paradigms. Instead, targeted enhancements to the existing checked exceptions system—like allowing lambdas to declare exceptions and supporting generic exception types—could preserve Java's unique approach while addressing its practical limitations.

The beauty of such improvements is that they'd maintain backward compatibility while making checked exceptions work seamlessly with modern Java features like lambdas and streams. They would acknowledge that the core concept of checked exceptions was sound—the problem was in the implementation details and their interaction with newer language features.

So rather than abandoning checked exceptions entirely, perhaps we should recognize them as a forward-thinking feature that was implemented before its time. As Java continues to evolve, we have an opportunity to refine this system rather than replace it.

In the meantime, next time you're tempted to disparage checked exceptions, remember: they're not just an annoying Java quirk—they're an early attempt at the same type safety paradigm that newer languages now implement with much celebration.

What do you think? Could these improvements make checked exceptions viable for modern Java development? Or is it too late to salvage this controversial feature? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts in the comments.

Read more →
1
0

Emelia 👸🏻 replied to the below article:

Revisiting Java's Checked Exceptions: An Underappreciated Type Safety Feature

洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) @hongminhee@hackers.pub

Despite their bad reputation in the Java community, checked exceptions provide superior type safety comparable to Rust's Result<T, E> or Haskell's Either a b—we've been dismissing one of Java's best features all along.

Introduction

Few features in Java have been as consistently criticized as checked exceptions. Modern Java libraries and frameworks often go to great lengths to avoid them. Newer JVM languages like Kotlin have abandoned them entirely. Many experienced Java developers consider them a design mistake.

But what if this conventional wisdom is wrong? What if checked exceptions represent one of Java's most forward-thinking features?

In this post, I'll argue that Java's checked exceptions were ahead of their time, offering many of the same type safety benefits that are now celebrated in languages like Rust and Haskell. Rather than abandoning this feature, we should consider how to improve it to work better with modern Java's features.

Understanding Java's Exception Handling Model

To set the stage, let's review how Java's exception system works:

  • Unchecked exceptions (subclasses of RuntimeException or Error): These don't need to be declared or caught. They typically represent programming errors (NullPointerException, IndexOutOfBoundsException) or unrecoverable conditions (OutOfMemoryError).

  • Checked exceptions (subclasses of Exception but not RuntimeException): These must either be caught with try/catch blocks or declared in the method signature with throws. They represent recoverable conditions that are outside the normal flow of execution (IOException, SQLException).

Here's how this works in practice:

// Checked exception - compiler forces you to handle or declare it
public void readFile(String path) throws IOException {
    Files.readAllLines(Path.of(path));
}

// Unchecked exception - no compiler enforcement
public void processArray(int[] array) {
    int value = array[array.length + 1]; // May throw ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
}

The Type Safety Argument for Checked Exceptions

At their core, checked exceptions are a way of encoding potential failure modes into the type system via method signatures. This makes certain failure cases part of the API contract, forcing client code to explicitly handle these cases.

Consider this method signature:

public byte[] readFileContents(String filePath) throws IOException

The throws IOException clause tells us something critical: this method might fail in ways related to IO operations. The compiler ensures you can't simply ignore this fact. You must either:

  1. Handle the exception with a try-catch block
  2. Propagate it by declaring it in your own method signature

This type-level representation of potential failures aligns perfectly with principles of modern type-safe programming.

Automatic Propagation: A Hidden Advantage

One often overlooked advantage of Java's checked exceptions is their automatic propagation. Once you declare a method as throws IOException, any exception that occurs is automatically propagated to the caller without additional syntax.

Compare this with Rust, where you must use the ? operator every time you call a function that returns a Result:

// Rust requires explicit propagation with ? for each call
fn read_and_process(path: &str) -> Result<(), std::io::Error> {
    let content = std::fs::read_to_string(path)?;
    process_content(&content)?;
    Ok(())
}

// Java automatically propagates exceptions once declared
void readAndProcess(String path) throws IOException {
    String content = Files.readString(Path.of(path));
    processContent(content); // If this throws IOException, it's automatically propagated
}

In complex methods with many potential failure points, Java's approach leads to cleaner code by eliminating the need for repetitive error propagation markers.

Modern Parallels: Result Types in Rust and Haskell

The approach of encoding failure possibilities in the type system has been adopted by many modern languages, most notably Rust with its Result<T, E> type and Haskell with its Either a b type.

In Rust:

fn read_file_contents(file_path: &str) -> Result<Vec<u8>, std::io::Error> {
    std::fs::read(file_path)
}

When calling this function, you can't just ignore the potential for errors—you need to handle both the success case and the error case, often using the ? operator or pattern matching.

In Haskell:

readFileContents :: FilePath -> IO (Either IOException ByteString)
readFileContents path = try $ BS.readFile path

Again, the caller must explicitly deal with both possible outcomes.

This is fundamentally the same insight that motivated Java's checked exceptions: make failure handling explicit in the type system.

Valid Criticisms of Checked Exceptions

If checked exceptions are conceptually similar to these widely-praised error handling mechanisms, why have they fallen out of favor? There are several legitimate criticisms:

1. Excessive Boilerplate in the Call Chain

The most common complaint is the boilerplate required when propagating exceptions up the call stack:

void methodA() throws IOException {
    methodB();
}

void methodB() throws IOException {
    methodC();
}

void methodC() throws IOException {
    // Actual code that might throw IOException
}

Every method in the chain must declare the same exception, creating repetitive code. While automatic propagation works well within a method, the explicit declaration in method signatures creates overhead.

2. Poor Integration with Functional Programming

Java 8 introduced lambdas and streams, but checked exceptions don't play well with them:

// Won't compile because map doesn't expect functions that throw checked exceptions
List<String> fileContents = filePaths.stream()
    .map(path -> Files.readString(Path.of(path))) // Throws IOException
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

This forces developers to use awkward workarounds:

List<String> fileContents = filePaths.stream()
    .map(path -> {
        try {
            return Files.readString(Path.of(path));
        } catch (IOException e) {
            throw new UncheckedIOException(e); // Wrap in an unchecked exception
        }
    })
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

3. Interface Evolution Problems

Adding a checked exception to an existing method breaks all implementing classes and calling code. This makes evolving interfaces over time difficult, especially for widely-used libraries and frameworks.

4. Catch-and-Ignore Anti-Pattern

The strictness of checked exceptions can lead to the worst possible outcome—developers simply catching and ignoring exceptions to make the compiler happy:

try {
    // Code that might throw
} catch (Exception e) {
    // Do nothing or just log
}

This is worse than having no exception checking at all because it provides a false sense of security.

Improving Checked Exceptions Without Abandoning Them

Rather than abandoning checked exceptions entirely, Java could enhance the existing system to address these legitimate concerns. Here are some potential improvements that preserve the type safety benefits while addressing the practical problems:

1. Allow lambdas to declare checked exceptions

One of the biggest pain points with checked exceptions today is their incompatibility with functional interfaces. Consider how much cleaner this would be:

// Current approach - forced to handle or wrap exceptions inline
List<String> contents = filePaths.stream()
    .map(path -> {
        try {
            return Files.readString(Path.of(path));
        } catch (IOException e) {
            throw new RuntimeException(e);
        }
    })
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

// Potential future approach - lambdas can declare exceptions
List<String> contents = filePaths.stream()
    .map((String path) throws IOException -> Files.readString(Path.of(path)))
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

This would require updating functional interfaces to support exception declarations:

@FunctionalInterface
public interface Function<T, R, E extends Exception> {
    R apply(T t) throws E;
}

2. Generic exception types in throws clauses

Another powerful enhancement would be allowing generic type parameters in throws clauses:

public <E extends Exception> void processWithException(Supplier<Void, E> supplier) throws E {
    supplier.get();
}

This would enable much more flexible composition of methods that work with different exception types, bringing some of the flexibility of Rust's Result<T, E> to Java's existing exception system.

3. Better support for exception handling in functional contexts

Unlike Rust which requires the ? operator for error propagation, Java already automatically propagates checked exceptions when declared in the method signature. What Java needs instead is better support for checked exceptions in functional contexts:

// Current approach for handling exceptions in streams
List<String> contents = filePaths.stream()
    .map(path -> {
        try {
            return Files.readString(Path.of(path));
        } catch (IOException e) {
            throw new RuntimeException(e); // Lose type information
        }
    })
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

// Hypothetical improved API
List<String> contents = filePaths.stream()
    .mapThrowing(path -> Files.readString(Path.of(path))) // Preserves checked exception
    .onException(IOException.class, e -> logError(e))
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

4. Integration with Optional<T> and Stream<T> APIs

The standard library could be enhanced to better support operations that might throw checked exceptions:

// Hypothetical API
Optional<String> content = Optional.ofThrowable(() -> Files.readString(Path.of("file.txt")));
content.ifPresentOrElse(
    this::processContent,
    exception -> log.error("Failed to read file", exception)
);

Comparison with Other Languages' Approaches

It's worth examining how other languages have addressed the error handling problem:

Rust's Result<T, E> and ? operator

Rust's approach using Result<T, E> and the ? operator shows how propagation can be made concise while keeping the type safety benefits. The ? operator automatically unwraps a successful result or returns the error to the caller, making propagation more elegant.

However, Rust's approach requires explicit propagation at each step, which can be more verbose than Java's automatic propagation in certain scenarios.

Kotlin's Approach

Kotlin made all exceptions unchecked but provides functional constructs like runCatching that bring back some type safety in a more modern way:

val result = runCatching {
    Files.readString(Path.of("file.txt"))
}

result.fold(
    onSuccess = { content -> processContent(content) },
    onFailure = { exception -> log.error("Failed to read file", exception) }
)

This approach works well with Kotlin's functional programming paradigm but lacks compile-time enforcement.

Scala's Try[T], Either[A, B], and Effect Systems

Scala offers Try[T], Either[A, B], and various effect systems that encode errors in the type system while integrating well with functional programming:

import scala.util.Try

val fileContent: Try[String] = Try {
  Source.fromFile("file.txt").mkString
}

fileContent match {
  case Success(content) => processContent(content)
  case Failure(exception) => log.error("Failed to read file", exception)
}

This approach preserves type safety while fitting well with Scala's functional paradigm.

Conclusion

Java's checked exceptions were a pioneering attempt to bring type safety to error handling. While the implementation has shortcomings, the core concept aligns with modern type-safe approaches to error handling in languages like Rust and Haskell.

Copying Rust's Result<T, E> might seem like the obvious solution, but it would represent a radical departure from Java's established paradigms. Instead, targeted enhancements to the existing checked exceptions system—like allowing lambdas to declare exceptions and supporting generic exception types—could preserve Java's unique approach while addressing its practical limitations.

The beauty of such improvements is that they'd maintain backward compatibility while making checked exceptions work seamlessly with modern Java features like lambdas and streams. They would acknowledge that the core concept of checked exceptions was sound—the problem was in the implementation details and their interaction with newer language features.

So rather than abandoning checked exceptions entirely, perhaps we should recognize them as a forward-thinking feature that was implemented before its time. As Java continues to evolve, we have an opportunity to refine this system rather than replace it.

In the meantime, next time you're tempted to disparage checked exceptions, remember: they're not just an annoying Java quirk—they're an early attempt at the same type safety paradigm that newer languages now implement with much celebration.

What do you think? Could these improvements make checked exceptions viable for modern Java development? Or is it too late to salvage this controversial feature? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts in the comments.

Read more →
1
0
洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) @hongminhee@hackers.pub
Public

@thisismissemEmelia 👸🏻 There's actually an issue in the TypeScript repo proposing exactly this! Many developers agree that typed errors would be a huge improvement. The current “try/catch any” approach feels like a gap in TS's otherwise strong type system.

The typescript type system is helpful in most cases, but it can’t be utilized when handling exceptions. For example: function fn(num: number): void { if (num === 0) { throw "error: can't deal with ...

Suggestion: `throws` clause and typed catch clause · Issue #13219 · microsoft/TypeScript

The typescript type system is helpful in most cases, but it can’t be utilized when handling exceptions. For example: function fn(num: number): void { if (num === 0) { throw "error: can't deal with ...

github.com · GitHub

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
bgl gwyng @bgl@hackers.pub
Quiet public
Shared by 洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee)

@tirr티르 저도 서브타이핑 기반인 TS에 상대적으로 쉽게 도입할 기능이 https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/13219 이렇게 오랫동안 진행안되는게 불만입니다. 막상 TS 이펙트 라이브러리들은 |로 흉내내서 잘 쓰고 있더라고요. Haskell처럼 대수적 이펙트는 구현할수있지만 서브타이핑 기반은 아닌 언어에선, 서브타이핑 흉내낸다고 타입레벨 차력쇼하고 있는데 맞는 방향인지 모르겠습니다.

The typescript type system is helpful in most cases, but it can’t be utilized when handling exceptions. For example: function fn(num: number): void { if (num === 0) { throw "error: can't deal with ...

Suggestion: `throws` clause and typed catch clause · Issue #13219 · microsoft/TypeScript

The typescript type system is helpful in most cases, but it can’t be utilized when handling exceptions. For example: function fn(num: number): void { if (num === 0) { throw "error: can't deal with ...

github.com · GitHub

0
0
geeknews_bot @geeknews_bot@sns.lemondouble.com
Public
Shared by 洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee)

자바의 체크드 예외 재고찰: 저평가된 타입 안전성 기능
------------------------------
## 주요 내용 요약

* 자바의 체크드 예외가 커뮤니티에서 널리 비판받는 기능임에도 타입 안전성 측면에서 뛰어난 장점 보유.
* Rust의 Result<T, E>나 Haskell의 Either a b와 개념적으로 유사한 타입 안전성 메커니즘 제공.
* 체크드 예외가 메서드 시그니처에 잠재적 실패 가능성을 명시적으로 표현하…
------------------------------
https://news.hada.io/topic?id=19877&utm_source=googlechat&utm_medium=bot&utm_campaign=1834

자바의 체크드 예외 재고찰: 저평가된 타입 안전성 기능 | GeekNews

주요 내용 요약자바의 체크드 예외가 커뮤니티에서 널리 비판받는 기능임에도 타입 안전성 측면에서 뛰어난 장점 보유.Rust의 Result<T, E>나 Haskell의 Either a b와 개념적으로 유사한 타입 안전성 메커니즘 제공.체크드 예외가 메서드 시그니처에 잠재적 실패 가능성을 명시적으로 표현하여 타입 시스템을 통한 오류 처리 강제.체크드 예외의 장점

news.hada.io · GeekNews

0
0

Revisiting Java's Checked Exceptions: An Underappreciated Type Safety Feature

洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) @hongminhee@hackers.pub

Despite their bad reputation in the Java community, checked exceptions provide superior type safety comparable to Rust's Result<T, E> or Haskell's Either a b—we've been dismissing one of Java's best features all along.

Introduction

Few features in Java have been as consistently criticized as checked exceptions. Modern Java libraries and frameworks often go to great lengths to avoid them. Newer JVM languages like Kotlin have abandoned them entirely. Many experienced Java developers consider them a design mistake.

But what if this conventional wisdom is wrong? What if checked exceptions represent one of Java's most forward-thinking features?

In this post, I'll argue that Java's checked exceptions were ahead of their time, offering many of the same type safety benefits that are now celebrated in languages like Rust and Haskell. Rather than abandoning this feature, we should consider how to improve it to work better with modern Java's features.

Understanding Java's Exception Handling Model

To set the stage, let's review how Java's exception system works:

  • Unchecked exceptions (subclasses of RuntimeException or Error): These don't need to be declared or caught. They typically represent programming errors (NullPointerException, IndexOutOfBoundsException) or unrecoverable conditions (OutOfMemoryError).

  • Checked exceptions (subclasses of Exception but not RuntimeException): These must either be caught with try/catch blocks or declared in the method signature with throws. They represent recoverable conditions that are outside the normal flow of execution (IOException, SQLException).

Here's how this works in practice:

// Checked exception - compiler forces you to handle or declare it
public void readFile(String path) throws IOException {
    Files.readAllLines(Path.of(path));
}

// Unchecked exception - no compiler enforcement
public void processArray(int[] array) {
    int value = array[array.length + 1]; // May throw ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
}

The Type Safety Argument for Checked Exceptions

At their core, checked exceptions are a way of encoding potential failure modes into the type system via method signatures. This makes certain failure cases part of the API contract, forcing client code to explicitly handle these cases.

Consider this method signature:

public byte[] readFileContents(String filePath) throws IOException

The throws IOException clause tells us something critical: this method might fail in ways related to IO operations. The compiler ensures you can't simply ignore this fact. You must either:

  1. Handle the exception with a try-catch block
  2. Propagate it by declaring it in your own method signature

This type-level representation of potential failures aligns perfectly with principles of modern type-safe programming.

Automatic Propagation: A Hidden Advantage

One often overlooked advantage of Java's checked exceptions is their automatic propagation. Once you declare a method as throws IOException, any exception that occurs is automatically propagated to the caller without additional syntax.

Compare this with Rust, where you must use the ? operator every time you call a function that returns a Result:

// Rust requires explicit propagation with ? for each call
fn read_and_process(path: &str) -> Result<(), std::io::Error> {
    let content = std::fs::read_to_string(path)?;
    process_content(&content)?;
    Ok(())
}

// Java automatically propagates exceptions once declared
void readAndProcess(String path) throws IOException {
    String content = Files.readString(Path.of(path));
    processContent(content); // If this throws IOException, it's automatically propagated
}

In complex methods with many potential failure points, Java's approach leads to cleaner code by eliminating the need for repetitive error propagation markers.

Modern Parallels: Result Types in Rust and Haskell

The approach of encoding failure possibilities in the type system has been adopted by many modern languages, most notably Rust with its Result<T, E> type and Haskell with its Either a b type.

In Rust:

fn read_file_contents(file_path: &str) -> Result<Vec<u8>, std::io::Error> {
    std::fs::read(file_path)
}

When calling this function, you can't just ignore the potential for errors—you need to handle both the success case and the error case, often using the ? operator or pattern matching.

In Haskell:

readFileContents :: FilePath -> IO (Either IOException ByteString)
readFileContents path = try $ BS.readFile path

Again, the caller must explicitly deal with both possible outcomes.

This is fundamentally the same insight that motivated Java's checked exceptions: make failure handling explicit in the type system.

Valid Criticisms of Checked Exceptions

If checked exceptions are conceptually similar to these widely-praised error handling mechanisms, why have they fallen out of favor? There are several legitimate criticisms:

1. Excessive Boilerplate in the Call Chain

The most common complaint is the boilerplate required when propagating exceptions up the call stack:

void methodA() throws IOException {
    methodB();
}

void methodB() throws IOException {
    methodC();
}

void methodC() throws IOException {
    // Actual code that might throw IOException
}

Every method in the chain must declare the same exception, creating repetitive code. While automatic propagation works well within a method, the explicit declaration in method signatures creates overhead.

2. Poor Integration with Functional Programming

Java 8 introduced lambdas and streams, but checked exceptions don't play well with them:

// Won't compile because map doesn't expect functions that throw checked exceptions
List<String> fileContents = filePaths.stream()
    .map(path -> Files.readString(Path.of(path))) // Throws IOException
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

This forces developers to use awkward workarounds:

List<String> fileContents = filePaths.stream()
    .map(path -> {
        try {
            return Files.readString(Path.of(path));
        } catch (IOException e) {
            throw new UncheckedIOException(e); // Wrap in an unchecked exception
        }
    })
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

3. Interface Evolution Problems

Adding a checked exception to an existing method breaks all implementing classes and calling code. This makes evolving interfaces over time difficult, especially for widely-used libraries and frameworks.

4. Catch-and-Ignore Anti-Pattern

The strictness of checked exceptions can lead to the worst possible outcome—developers simply catching and ignoring exceptions to make the compiler happy:

try {
    // Code that might throw
} catch (Exception e) {
    // Do nothing or just log
}

This is worse than having no exception checking at all because it provides a false sense of security.

Improving Checked Exceptions Without Abandoning Them

Rather than abandoning checked exceptions entirely, Java could enhance the existing system to address these legitimate concerns. Here are some potential improvements that preserve the type safety benefits while addressing the practical problems:

1. Allow lambdas to declare checked exceptions

One of the biggest pain points with checked exceptions today is their incompatibility with functional interfaces. Consider how much cleaner this would be:

// Current approach - forced to handle or wrap exceptions inline
List<String> contents = filePaths.stream()
    .map(path -> {
        try {
            return Files.readString(Path.of(path));
        } catch (IOException e) {
            throw new RuntimeException(e);
        }
    })
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

// Potential future approach - lambdas can declare exceptions
List<String> contents = filePaths.stream()
    .map((String path) throws IOException -> Files.readString(Path.of(path)))
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

This would require updating functional interfaces to support exception declarations:

@FunctionalInterface
public interface Function<T, R, E extends Exception> {
    R apply(T t) throws E;
}

2. Generic exception types in throws clauses

Another powerful enhancement would be allowing generic type parameters in throws clauses:

public <E extends Exception> void processWithException(Supplier<Void, E> supplier) throws E {
    supplier.get();
}

This would enable much more flexible composition of methods that work with different exception types, bringing some of the flexibility of Rust's Result<T, E> to Java's existing exception system.

3. Better support for exception handling in functional contexts

Unlike Rust which requires the ? operator for error propagation, Java already automatically propagates checked exceptions when declared in the method signature. What Java needs instead is better support for checked exceptions in functional contexts:

// Current approach for handling exceptions in streams
List<String> contents = filePaths.stream()
    .map(path -> {
        try {
            return Files.readString(Path.of(path));
        } catch (IOException e) {
            throw new RuntimeException(e); // Lose type information
        }
    })
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

// Hypothetical improved API
List<String> contents = filePaths.stream()
    .mapThrowing(path -> Files.readString(Path.of(path))) // Preserves checked exception
    .onException(IOException.class, e -> logError(e))
    .collect(Collectors.toList());

4. Integration with Optional<T> and Stream<T> APIs

The standard library could be enhanced to better support operations that might throw checked exceptions:

// Hypothetical API
Optional<String> content = Optional.ofThrowable(() -> Files.readString(Path.of("file.txt")));
content.ifPresentOrElse(
    this::processContent,
    exception -> log.error("Failed to read file", exception)
);

Comparison with Other Languages' Approaches

It's worth examining how other languages have addressed the error handling problem:

Rust's Result<T, E> and ? operator

Rust's approach using Result<T, E> and the ? operator shows how propagation can be made concise while keeping the type safety benefits. The ? operator automatically unwraps a successful result or returns the error to the caller, making propagation more elegant.

However, Rust's approach requires explicit propagation at each step, which can be more verbose than Java's automatic propagation in certain scenarios.

Kotlin's Approach

Kotlin made all exceptions unchecked but provides functional constructs like runCatching that bring back some type safety in a more modern way:

val result = runCatching {
    Files.readString(Path.of("file.txt"))
}

result.fold(
    onSuccess = { content -> processContent(content) },
    onFailure = { exception -> log.error("Failed to read file", exception) }
)

This approach works well with Kotlin's functional programming paradigm but lacks compile-time enforcement.

Scala's Try[T], Either[A, B], and Effect Systems

Scala offers Try[T], Either[A, B], and various effect systems that encode errors in the type system while integrating well with functional programming:

import scala.util.Try

val fileContent: Try[String] = Try {
  Source.fromFile("file.txt").mkString
}

fileContent match {
  case Success(content) => processContent(content)
  case Failure(exception) => log.error("Failed to read file", exception)
}

This approach preserves type safety while fitting well with Scala's functional paradigm.

Conclusion

Java's checked exceptions were a pioneering attempt to bring type safety to error handling. While the implementation has shortcomings, the core concept aligns with modern type-safe approaches to error handling in languages like Rust and Haskell.

Copying Rust's Result<T, E> might seem like the obvious solution, but it would represent a radical departure from Java's established paradigms. Instead, targeted enhancements to the existing checked exceptions system—like allowing lambdas to declare exceptions and supporting generic exception types—could preserve Java's unique approach while addressing its practical limitations.

The beauty of such improvements is that they'd maintain backward compatibility while making checked exceptions work seamlessly with modern Java features like lambdas and streams. They would acknowledge that the core concept of checked exceptions was sound—the problem was in the implementation details and their interaction with newer language features.

So rather than abandoning checked exceptions entirely, perhaps we should recognize them as a forward-thinking feature that was implemented before its time. As Java continues to evolve, we have an opportunity to refine this system rather than replace it.

In the meantime, next time you're tempted to disparage checked exceptions, remember: they're not just an annoying Java quirk—they're an early attempt at the same type safety paradigm that newer languages now implement with much celebration.

What do you think? Could these improvements make checked exceptions viable for modern Java development? Or is it too late to salvage this controversial feature? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts in the comments.

Read more →
0
3
0
0
bgl gwyng @bgl@hackers.pub
Public

@hongminhee洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) 저는 Nix를 쓰고 있습니다. 한동안 Haskell 안쓰고있다가 오랜만에 돌아왔더니 다들 Nix 쓰고있어서 그냥 따라 쓰는 상태입니다. Nix가 해결하려는 문제와 방향은 공감하지만, Haksell + Nix가 막 엄청 좋은지는 잘 모르겠는 상태에요.

Nix로 그냥 GHC랑 Cabal, Stack 버전만 잡고 나머지는 Cabal, Stack 등의 기존 하스켈 툴링에 맡기는 방법이 있고, 또 Nix가 패키지 다운받아서 빌드하는 역할까지 대신해버리는 방법이 있는데, 제가 쓰고 있는 방법은 후자입니다.

0
0
4
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) @hongminhee@hackers.pub
Quiet public

@arkjunJuntai Park 아… 그럼 Threads의 주제는 ActivityPub 상에서 마크업이 되진 않는 것 같네요. Threads 내부에서만 활용 가능한 기능인가 봅니다. 참고로 이찬진 님의 해당 글은 Activity Streams 객체로 아래와 같이 표현되고 있습니다:

{
  "id": "https://threads.net/ap/users/17841400639660143/post/17976118301827877/",
  "type": "Note",
  "content": "<p>이제 스레드의 &#039;주제(Topic)&#039; 기능을 &#039;해시태그&#039;라고 부를 수 없겠네요. <br /><br />게시물 작성 화면에서 &#039;해시태그&#039;를 의미하는 &#039;#&#039; 버튼이 없어졌고 대신 &#039;주제 추가&#039; 버튼이 들어갔습니다. <br /><br />물론 전에 &#039;해시태그&#039;와 비슷하게 보일 때에도<br /><br />- 게시물에 하나 밖에 쓸 수 없었고<br />- 태그에 스페이스를 쓸 수 있었고<br />- &#039;#&#039;이 없었으니<br /><br />정확하게 해시태그는 아니었지만 이제는 입력하는 방법도 그렇고 표시되는 위치도 그렇고 확실히 &#039;주제&#039; 기능이라고 불러야겠네요.<br />#스레드 개선</p>",
  "published": "2025-03-20T18:35:52-07:00",
  "contentMap": {
    "ko": "<p>이제 스레드의 &#039;주제(Topic)&#039; 기능을 &#039;해시태그&#039;라고 부를 수 없겠네요. <br /><br />게시물 작성 화면에서 &#039;해시태그&#039;를 의미하는 &#039;#&#039; 버튼이 없어졌고 대신 &#039;주제 추가&#039; 버튼이 들어갔습니다. <br /><br />물론 전에 &#039;해시태그&#039;와 비슷하게 보일 때에도<br /><br />- 게시물에 하나 밖에 쓸 수 없었고<br />- 태그에 스페이스를 쓸 수 있었고<br />- &#039;#&#039;이 없었으니<br /><br />정확하게 해시태그는 아니었지만 이제는 입력하는 방법도 그렇고 표시되는 위치도 그렇고 확실히 &#039;주제&#039; 기능이라고 불러야겠네요.<br />#스레드 개선</p>"
  },
  "attributedTo": "https://threads.net/ap/users/17841400639660143/",
  "url": "https://www.threads.net/@chanjin65/post/DHcXMcczYx6",
  "to": [
    "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
  ],
  "cc": [
    "https://threads.net/ap/users/17841400639660143/followers/"
  ],
  "@context": [
    "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams"
  ],
  "tag": [],
  "attachment": [
    {
      "type": "Image",
      "url": "https://scontent-ssn1-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.75761-15/485651795_17904023592105580_5390283833466719793_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_e35_tt6&_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=18de74&_nc_ohc=Ds02qFOIJUUQ7kNvgGjxYCA&_nc_oc=AdnVGfWmGdOHV2sZAvWtcv1M0iaLjV4A-RbC0lDI_hgvwYrnt69HjBGo_js8NkvX6T0&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-ssn1-1.cdninstagram.com&edm=AMJMky4EAAAA&_nc_gid=dudtlAu0RjYNhaifxVdB_Q&oh=00_AYG5YaNk9YbLpECGixfB74Lgi9-VSZhhYWByBvTi6lGBaw&oe=67E29C5A",
      "name": "Photo by 이차지 on March 20, 2025. 사람 1명, 화면 및 문구: '10:26 취소 새로운 스레드 베타 베타·페디버스에공유합니다. 페디버스메 공유합니 chanjin65 chanjin650>7 이>주제추7 스레드에추가 누구에게나답글및인용허용 인용허용 N ㅂ 2 天 世 3 C 4 ٦ 5 人 6 Η ㅔ ㅁ니ㅇ리ㅎ 2 ᄒ @ ١ ᄏ ㅏ E 天 ㅍ T AAA 123 간격 AH KIy'의 Twitter 스크린샷일 수 있음.",
      "width": 1125,
      "height": 2436
    }
  ]
}
1
0
0
0