3 ms·
Type safety mainly, i think. Performance is a definite concern, but they have a lot of internal applications and the stability of them varies. I offered up that
by fizzbatter 10y ago
Type safety mainly, i think. Performance is a definite concern, but they have a lot of internal applications and the stability of them varies. I offered up that less dynamic languages would provide more speed and reliability to boot.
I know Python got types in 3.5, though i'm not sure if it has Go-like Interfaces (Traits in Rust). If not, i think it really should.
I do firmly believe they'll be quite happy with Go though. Rust, not so much.
- greendragon 10y agoSeems a lot of the Go fans I read are former Python users burned by dynamic typing, so I agree they'll end up happy (or at least happier than Rust) with Go. Though one more option you might want to consider is Nim: http://nim-lang.org/ http://nim-lang.org/ (It's pretty easy to get up to speed in it, especially for a Python user so long as they're not expecting to use fancy OO features.)
- jerf 10y agoPython has always had Go-like interfaces in practice. The problem was that they were not reified into the code, so you had no easy way to know when calling a function and passing it a "file" exactly what file-like things the function was going to do with that "file" without reading the source code. You had to extract the interface yourself.
- fizzbatter 10y agoNot only that, but there's simply no guarantees. You can abuse a function in any way you see fit in Python, and the only one that suffers is your runtime sever :( Optional types in 3.5 look awesome - but i don't want to lose duck typing. I want Go-interfaces in Python.