> I suppose what counts as "elaborate" is a matter of opinion I think you got the wrong bit of that. I wasn't saying that I don't sometimes wind up with elabo

> I suppose what counts as "elaborate" is a matter of opinion I think you got the wrong bit of that. I wasn't saying that I don't sometimes wind up with elaborate types in Haskell, for which checking and inference is even more helpful. I was saying that even in the incredibly simple case where I just want to know an interface I still find it quite useful, and conspicuously absent in Python when I reach for it. > I disagree. In python you can start with a pdb that only gets so far, and figure out what y0u need to write based on inspecting the objects you have available in scope, testing out some functions on them, etc. What you describe here is push based. I need to come up with data, pass it into bits of the system, go through it forward until I get to the bit in question, and hope I've considered all the important bits. Again, a push based approach to answering these questions is often a good one, and Python probably has an edge there. I find that pull based is also often useful, and Python lacks it entirely. > In GHCi you can get help on what object is required to satisfy a type equation, but only after you first provide it with enough information that it has a meaningfully small set of free variables to solve. I ask these questions regularly, and don't recall it ever breaking down in this way... perhaps I'm just not understanding what you're getting at? > I don't find myself needing or missing it in python. Okay. I do. Repeatedly, every time I work in Python. Again, maybe I'm just faced with bad Python code? Maybe I've just done more Haskell, so built more of these habits? Maybe other pieces of our context are just different. Is your Python work usually more like greenfield development or are you needing to make changes to systems primarily built by other people? Or maybe it's just that we're different people :-P