3 ms·

It seems like the argument is because the language doesn't force you to use static types, in the long run it could be bad. But since it provides you the option

• staticassertion 10y ago
  > It seems like the argument is because the language doesn't force you to use static types, in the long run it could be bad. Not so much 'in the long run' but moreso 'as soon as you end the exploratory phase'. > I think the limitation is more in whether you do so or not, not in the language Perhaps if the type systems were equal in power, but they are not. > If anything, by not forcing you to use static types, the language provides more options, which seems like a good thing... The problem here is that touching an untyped interface can break inference, and break assumptions about types, meaning that by having the type system be optional you potentially poke holes in it. But to be clear, I think that the typed python approach is valid, and can be a great way to help with these problems. I am not saying to ditch python and go with another typed language - just saying that the untyped approach has caveats. Maybe you're right and optional systems are better, but I think the point to get across is that a typed understanding of your data helps a lot.