8 ms·

Except Python is not only used for what you do. People use it for batch testing, SIG embeded language, sciencitic analysis, sys admin, 3D tool scripting, glue c

Except Python is not only used for what you do. People use it for batch testing, SIG embeded language, sciencitic analysis, sys admin, 3D tool scripting, glue code, product pipelines, etc. Having a required type system for this huge part of the community would be a great let down. Those criticism come from people comming from a strong dev background. They completly ignore the rest of the world. That's why having the current OPTIONAL type system is so good. Because you can use it and benefit from it, and many do, but you don't screw half of your community. Python strength is versatility. It's not the best at anything. But it's very good at most things. That's why if you know it, you can solve most problems decently. That's what makes it fantastic. I'm still waiting for people doing data anaylsis in Go, sysadmin in JS, 3D scripting in Haskell, batch testing in erlang or geography in lisp. Because Python... well it can. And AI. And Web. And embeded systems. And IoT. And... And...

DarkKomunalec 9y ago
How would a type system hinder those people?
- sametmax 9y ago
  Most of those people are not dev. They don't write libraries, don't have time to learn many docs or type many lines. They have 30x 200 lines longs scripts and couldn't care less about code quality. They just want the result.
  - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
    I am unable to find an answer to my question in what you just said.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      Path of least resistence. A strong type system is much more extra work than you think.
      - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
        I have worked with strong and no type systems, and have found that the absence of a type system is extra work. Instead of the compiler telling me exactly what something is, what I can do with it, and if it makes sense to pass it to some function, I have to figure all of that out myself, greatly slowing me down. Edit: It occurs to me I have yet to hear an answer to my question of how types hinder anything, especially if they are inferred. The only exception is the trivial requirement of sometimes having to cast between numeric types.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        Yeah, you basically make initial implementation easier at the expense of maintenance and debugging, which sounds like a good tradeoff until you think about the relative amount of time you spend doing one thing vs the other.
        loup-vaillant 9y ago
        > at the expense of maintenance and debugging, Do you realize how insane that sounds? Static typing makes programs harder to debug? Harder to maintain?? On the contrary, static typing helps debugging and maintenance: changes that break invariants are more likely to be caught by the type system. This speak of tradeoff sounds wise on the surface, but this is hardly a tradeoff at all. For many people (including me), a good static type system makes prototyping and maintenance easier.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        It probably sounds insane because you have interpreted my post to mean the exact opposite of what I intended.
        loup-vaillant 9y ago
        Your comment sounded like this to me: > Yeah, you [DarkKomunalec] basically [use static typing to] make initial implementation easier at the expense of maintenance and debugging It was not clear that "Yeah" was an approval (and not a dismissal), and it was not obvious that "you" was a general "you" (and not a personal "you" directed at DarkKomunalec). Nevertheless, you were still talking about a tradeoff, and I personally see none: in my experience, dynamic typing makes initial implementations harder (or longer), because so many errors are caught too late. Static type systems have a much tighter feedback loop.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      A programmer sees 2 and 2.5 as different types. A normal person doesn't care. He just wants, and expects, 2+2.5 to yield 4.5. He doesn't want to use a cast, or write the 2 as 2.0, or use some sort of baroque type conversion procedure, or anything like that. This answer is not Python-specific, of course, but it's a good example of the overhead that gets introduced when a language becomes too type-happy.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        I'll bet he starts to care if floating point arithmetic introduces errors into his results. You can only push off the complexity for so long if you want to do things that aren't trivial.
        Turing_Machine 9y ago
        Can you think of a (non-contrived) example where automatic promotion to float is going to cause a non-trivial error when computing (say) a household budget? "You can only push off the complexity for so long if you want to do things that aren't trivial." There are a lot of things that aren't "trivial" that nonetheless don't require a totalitarian type system.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        Isn't the biggest non-programmer audience who has any interest in writing Python scripts scientists? I don't think it's totally contrived to imagine that floating-point precision is an issue in such cases.
        sametmax 9y ago
        Fun fact: half of the professional programmers I met in my life don't even try to do anything for floating point precision issues. You are living in your bubble. The bubble of people who knows what they are doing. Get out, you'll be surprise how much amateurish the world is. Yet it runs.
- hajile 9y ago
  I think that would depend on the type system. Dart has an optional type system (no types, some types, strong mode) with different levels of safety. Interestingly though, even if you write strong mode code, the types are completely thrown out before execution. It's a bit of an aside, but I don't know (libs aside) why anyone would choose python over dart. Types are great for large projects, but tend to add verbosity and development time for small scripts (thus why there are so few strongly typed scripting languages). SML/ocaml show that there is a nice middle ground where most types are inferred, so you can keep your types without too much work. Unfortunately, they've been around for decades with little usage in the profession.
scardine 9y ago
Hey, Lisp is pretty good for geography and was the language of choice for writing quick extensions in Autocad back in the day. Lisp lists are as natural for representing 2D and 3D points as Python lists and dicts. My first programming job was writing map reports (choropleth maps) using AutoLisp.
- sametmax 9y ago
  The geographes I know would never, ever be able to do in lisp what they do in Python. They are not computer minded at all.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    This meme about "computer-mindedness" is pseudo-scientific nonsense. It's something I fell hard for as well, because it's a lovely idea. But it's simply not true.
  - scardine 9y ago
    Lisp is not for the enlightened only! Anyone that ever used a scientific calculator can hack around. In fact Lisp can be much simpler than Python, it is just like using a RPN calculator if you don't want to dare into macros and other advanced stuff.
emodendroket 9y ago
OK, sure, but people are pitching Python not just as a language to write scripts but also one to do development of large projects on large teams, and I think this property makes it somewhat ill suited for that.
- sametmax 9y ago
  I wrote plenty of big projects in Python. It works very well, the problems and solutions you have are just different that in other languages you are used to. The question is more about "what kind of problem do you want to have and what price are you willing to pay to solve them ?". After that, choose the tech that matches this wish. For me the iteration speed, the ease of adding new members and the flexibility are key. But what I discovered is that most people just code bad Python and say they have problems, just like most people write bad C/java/whatever and blame the language. You are supposed to writte Python in a certain way, like any language, to scale.
  - sethrin 9y ago
    Would you perhaps mind giving your opinion of Ruby?
    - sametmax 9y ago
      I had the choice between Ruby and Python years ago. I choose Python because of the community, not the language. They are more or less equivalent, although I prefer forced indentation. Nowaday, ruby is dying in his RoR and Japan niches so the question is moot.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    It is of course possible to build a great large product in Python, just like it is possible to do so in whatever your least favorite language is. But I'd argue there is more discipline needed to do so than there is in other languages with more type checking and there are whole classes of errors you simply wouldn't have to worry about.
KirinDave 9y ago
> batch testing, SIG embeded language, sciencitic analysis, sys admin, 3D tool scripting, glue code, product pipelines, etc. > Having a required type system for this huge part of the community would be a great let down. ... Why? These days types generate much more code than they cost in modern FP languages. E.g., https://github.com/haskell-servant/example-servant-minimal/blob/master/src/App.hs https://github.com/haskell-servant/example-servant-minimal/b... > That's why if you know it, you can solve most problems decently. That's what makes it fantastic. Most of the things you're talking about are available in other languages. And quite frankly, if pure versatility and available open sourced code is your argument? Then why aren't you using Javascript and nodejs? Name a general domain that I can't find at least one or more well-maintained projects supported on NPM. I dare you. > And embeded systems. Who.. who is doing IoT and Esys in Python outside of toymakers?
- vacri 9y ago
  > who is doing IoT and Esys in Python outside of toymakers? Aren't most IoT things basically toys anyway?
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Zing.
- cwyers 9y ago
  You may be able to find a well-maintained data science/machine learning project on npm, but I doubt you'll find as many as are needed in a typical data science workflow.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Maybe, not sure how that is relevant. You definitely CAN do it, it's just not as common. Same could be said of F#.
    - cwyers 9y ago
      > Name a general domain that I can't find at least one or more well-maintained projects supported on NPM. I dare you. one is named > Maybe, not sure how that is relevant. Man, it was your dare!

DarkKomunalec 9y ago

How would a type system hinder those people?

sametmax 9y ago
Most of those people are not dev. They don't write libraries, don't have time to learn many docs or type many lines. They have 30x 200 lines longs scripts and couldn't care less about code quality. They just want the result.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  I am unable to find an answer to my question in what you just said.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    Path of least resistence. A strong type system is much more extra work than you think.
    - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
      I have worked with strong and no type systems, and have found that the absence of a type system is extra work. Instead of the compiler telling me exactly what something is, what I can do with it, and if it makes sense to pass it to some function, I have to figure all of that out myself, greatly slowing me down. Edit: It occurs to me I have yet to hear an answer to my question of how types hinder anything, especially if they are inferred. The only exception is the trivial requirement of sometimes having to cast between numeric types.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        Yeah, you basically make initial implementation easier at the expense of maintenance and debugging, which sounds like a good tradeoff until you think about the relative amount of time you spend doing one thing vs the other.
        loup-vaillant 9y ago
        > at the expense of maintenance and debugging, Do you realize how insane that sounds? Static typing makes programs harder to debug? Harder to maintain?? On the contrary, static typing helps debugging and maintenance: changes that break invariants are more likely to be caught by the type system. This speak of tradeoff sounds wise on the surface, but this is hardly a tradeoff at all. For many people (including me), a good static type system makes prototyping and maintenance easier.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        It probably sounds insane because you have interpreted my post to mean the exact opposite of what I intended.
        loup-vaillant 9y ago
        Your comment sounded like this to me: > Yeah, you [DarkKomunalec] basically [use static typing to] make initial implementation easier at the expense of maintenance and debugging It was not clear that "Yeah" was an approval (and not a dismissal), and it was not obvious that "you" was a general "you" (and not a personal "you" directed at DarkKomunalec). Nevertheless, you were still talking about a tradeoff, and I personally see none: in my experience, dynamic typing makes initial implementations harder (or longer), because so many errors are caught too late. Static type systems have a much tighter feedback loop.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    A programmer sees 2 and 2.5 as different types. A normal person doesn't care. He just wants, and expects, 2+2.5 to yield 4.5. He doesn't want to use a cast, or write the 2 as 2.0, or use some sort of baroque type conversion procedure, or anything like that. This answer is not Python-specific, of course, but it's a good example of the overhead that gets introduced when a language becomes too type-happy.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      I'll bet he starts to care if floating point arithmetic introduces errors into his results. You can only push off the complexity for so long if you want to do things that aren't trivial.
      - Turing_Machine 9y ago
        Can you think of a (non-contrived) example where automatic promotion to float is going to cause a non-trivial error when computing (say) a household budget? "You can only push off the complexity for so long if you want to do things that aren't trivial." There are a lot of things that aren't "trivial" that nonetheless don't require a totalitarian type system.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        Isn't the biggest non-programmer audience who has any interest in writing Python scripts scientists? I don't think it's totally contrived to imagine that floating-point precision is an issue in such cases.
        sametmax 9y ago
        Fun fact: half of the professional programmers I met in my life don't even try to do anything for floating point precision issues. You are living in your bubble. The bubble of people who knows what they are doing. Get out, you'll be surprise how much amateurish the world is. Yet it runs.
hajile 9y ago
I think that would depend on the type system. Dart has an optional type system (no types, some types, strong mode) with different levels of safety. Interestingly though, even if you write strong mode code, the types are completely thrown out before execution. It's a bit of an aside, but I don't know (libs aside) why anyone would choose python over dart. Types are great for large projects, but tend to add verbosity and development time for small scripts (thus why there are so few strongly typed scripting languages). SML/ocaml show that there is a nice middle ground where most types are inferred, so you can keep your types without too much work. Unfortunately, they've been around for decades with little usage in the profession.

scardine 9y ago

Hey, Lisp is pretty good for geography and was the language of choice for writing quick extensions in Autocad back in the day. Lisp lists are as natural for representing 2D and 3D points as Python lists and dicts. My first programming job was writing map reports (choropleth maps) using AutoLisp.

sametmax 9y ago
The geographes I know would never, ever be able to do in lisp what they do in Python. They are not computer minded at all.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  This meme about "computer-mindedness" is pseudo-scientific nonsense. It's something I fell hard for as well, because it's a lovely idea. But it's simply not true.
- scardine 9y ago
  Lisp is not for the enlightened only! Anyone that ever used a scientific calculator can hack around. In fact Lisp can be much simpler than Python, it is just like using a RPN calculator if you don't want to dare into macros and other advanced stuff.

emodendroket 9y ago

OK, sure, but people are pitching Python not just as a language to write scripts but also one to do development of large projects on large teams, and I think this property makes it somewhat ill suited for that.

sametmax 9y ago
I wrote plenty of big projects in Python. It works very well, the problems and solutions you have are just different that in other languages you are used to. The question is more about "what kind of problem do you want to have and what price are you willing to pay to solve them ?". After that, choose the tech that matches this wish. For me the iteration speed, the ease of adding new members and the flexibility are key. But what I discovered is that most people just code bad Python and say they have problems, just like most people write bad C/java/whatever and blame the language. You are supposed to writte Python in a certain way, like any language, to scale.
- sethrin 9y ago
  Would you perhaps mind giving your opinion of Ruby?
  - sametmax 9y ago
    I had the choice between Ruby and Python years ago. I choose Python because of the community, not the language. They are more or less equivalent, although I prefer forced indentation. Nowaday, ruby is dying in his RoR and Japan niches so the question is moot.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  It is of course possible to build a great large product in Python, just like it is possible to do so in whatever your least favorite language is. But I'd argue there is more discipline needed to do so than there is in other languages with more type checking and there are whole classes of errors you simply wouldn't have to worry about.

KirinDave 9y ago

> batch testing, SIG embeded language, sciencitic analysis, sys admin, 3D tool scripting, glue code, product pipelines, etc. > Having a required type system for this huge part of the community would be a great let down. ... Why? These days types generate much more code than they cost in modern FP languages. E.g., https://github.com/haskell-servant/example-servant-minimal/blob/master/src/App.hs https://github.com/haskell-servant/example-servant-minimal/b... > That's why if you know it, you can solve most problems decently. That's what makes it fantastic. Most of the things you're talking about are available in other languages. And quite frankly, if pure versatility and available open sourced code is your argument? Then why aren't you using Javascript and nodejs? Name a general domain that I can't find at least one or more well-maintained projects supported on NPM. I dare you. > And embeded systems. Who.. who is doing IoT and Esys in Python outside of toymakers?

vacri 9y ago
> who is doing IoT and Esys in Python outside of toymakers? Aren't most IoT things basically toys anyway?
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Zing.
cwyers 9y ago
You may be able to find a well-maintained data science/machine learning project on npm, but I doubt you'll find as many as are needed in a typical data science workflow.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Maybe, not sure how that is relevant. You definitely CAN do it, it's just not as common. Same could be said of F#.
  - cwyers 9y ago
    > Name a general domain that I can't find at least one or more well-maintained projects supported on NPM. I dare you. one is named > Maybe, not sure how that is relevant. Man, it was your dare!