6 ms·

The point is that there is no property of python that allowed them to build a successful company that any statically typed language don't have. It is a complete

by tjoff 9y ago

The point is that there is no property of python that allowed them to build a successful company that any statically typed language don't have. It is a completely unnecessary detour. The cost of doing it right from the start is negligible.

oblio 9y ago
You're assuming that the original developers would have been just as productive in a statically typed language as they were Python. Big assumption. Both because they might have known Python already and also because Python is quite a bit more newbie-friendly, concise and expressive than the mainstream statically typed languages.
- tjoff 9y ago
  Obviously what the programmers knew to start with is of importance. But that's no property of the language (well, sure, being easy to pick up increases the risk). But no, ignoring that it is not a big assumption really. The benefits of static typing comes pretty quickly, especially if there are more than one programmer.
ageofwant 9y ago
I think the general consensus is that that is not true. Python's dynamic nature is a clear advantage it has over statically typed languages. Add the fact that you can elect to tune down the dynamism when it makes sense to with very little impact on your existing stack makes Python the technological superior choice for the majority of applications.
- sidlls 9y ago
  There's nothing here that tunes down the dynamism. Hints aren't statically checked or enforced. It's still possible to pass in an empty list to an int-hinted var and, e.g. have `if not var` evaluate to True (rather than raise an Exception). Type hints allow external tools to check some things, but at this point you're basically imposing static types so why not use a language with the tooling and optimizations to take advantage of that? Python is a good choice to prototype, write small (less than a few thousand lines of code) projects with non-trivial complexity, and somewhat larger projects with more boilerplate (e.g. Django webapps). Beyond that its utility diminishes until it starts to become a hindrance.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    >Type hints allow external tools to check some things, but at this point you're basically imposing static types so why not use a language with the tooling and optimizations to take advantage of that? Python's type system is, imo, currently better than Java's, and the syntax is cleaner than java's or C++s. You get all the benefits of static typing without having to put `auto` and `List<>` everywhere. And at the same time, you get all of the advantages that python has over statically typed languages that aren't haskell (like comprehensions). And, when you need to, if you're doing something that's especially tricky or dynamic or whatnot, you can fall back to untypedness. I think the closest parallel I can draw is to something like Rust. You get a huge set of guarantees for free, but can opt to do unsafe things when it's absolutely necessary, and better yet, you can start in unsafe land and then go back later and make sure your code is safe. I'm curious what tooling you feel that say, Java, has over type-annotated python.
    - sidlls 9y ago
      Hints don't provide any guarantees. It's still possible to silently and unknowingly pass the wrong type of value into any given argument, with or without the checker. The "tooling" the other languages have includes a compiler that performs these checks in a way that Hints + Checker-of-choice is unlikely (or unable) to. "What do you think these checkers do?" you might ask. The answer is: not nearly what a compiler does.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        > It's still possible to silently and unknowingly pass the wrong type of value into any given argument This is also possible in traditionally statically typed languages. Nothing stops you from doing unsafe casts or using reflection. Much like its exceedingly unlikely that you'll run across this in "normal" java or C++, its exceedingly unlikely for you to run into any issues with this in python. And, in fact, the typechecker has ways to handle unusual things like dynamically created attributes, for when that comes up. And yes I mean this quite honestly. I've seen a lot of typechecked code, some of it quite ridiculously dynamic. Typecheckers perform absolutely fine. >The "tooling" the other languages have includes a compiler that performs these checks in a way that Hints + Checker-of-choice is unlikely (or unable) to. What way is that? Typechecking is static analysis. There's really no difference between how java or cpp does typechecking and how mypy does, other than that the python typechecker isn't installed by default. >The answer is: not nearly what a compiler does. This is not an answer.
- tigershark 9y ago
  Absolutely not. Python is not the technological superior choice for the majority of the applications. If you think so then your experience in different domains and application types must be very limited. The preconcept that dynamic languages are more productive is just an illusion because you can easily take shortcuts that will hamper your progress in the future. A proper typed language with HM type inference has the ability to mostly avoid writing the types with the guarantee that the compiler will catch most of the pitfalls. And if you don't do any logic error pretty much every time your code just works. Saying that in a million line application Python is a better choice than F# or Haskell it's frankly ridiculous in my opinion.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    Empirically, there are a lot more million line python codebases than F# or haskell codebases, in fact I can name multiple million line python codebases, and 0 F# or haskell codebases. Given that, logic would indicate some sort of failure on the part of haskell and F#, or they would see wider adoption among the large codebases where they are so useful. Do you disagree?
    - tigershark 9y ago
      Given how much smaller is the F# community and how much more you can crank in less lines of codes in F# I can believe it. Between C# and F# there is about an order of magnitude of difference in the LOCs for big projects and C# and Python are comparable from this metric.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        It appears you missed my point. I can't think of a 100kloc f# or Haskell codebase, so even if they were 10x as terse as python, which they aren't, python comes out ahead. If they're so much better, why don't people use them?
        kod 9y ago
        I can think of 100kloc Scala codebases, e.g. Kafka. People do use ML family languages, and they are better. There are plenty of non-technical reasons they aren't as widespread as dynamic languages or shitty static languages.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
c22 9y ago
The first language I learned (after Applesoft BASIC) was C. I wrote C for a long time. About 6 years ago I picked up Python. Today I find it much easier and much more pleasant to spin up a new idea in Python, to the point that it is my default choice for new projects with fuzzily defined goals. None of my ideas have become companies, but I could totally see just sticking with Python even past the point that it became unwieldy.
- tigershark 9y ago
  Between c and Python there is an ocean of languages...
  - c22 9y ago
    True enough. I've dabbled in several. These are just the two I happen to have the most experience in and the ones that seemed relevant to my point.
  - walrus1066 9y ago
    I'm with the OP on this, I've experience with Java, C#, Python & C++. I'm a big fan of rapid prototyping with Python to map out problem domains, and once the domain has been mapped properly, rewriting in a statically typed language if necessary. Python is much better for prototyping than the other langs I've used. Because the syntax is almost pseudocode, and the duck-typing makes a lot of design patterns and boilerplate obsolete, so I can dedicate my headspace to the problem at hand. Right tool for the right job, as they say.

by tjoff 9y ago

oblio 9y ago

You're assuming that the original developers would have been just as productive in a statically typed language as they were Python. Big assumption. Both because they might have known Python already and also because Python is quite a bit more newbie-friendly, concise and expressive than the mainstream statically typed languages.

tjoff 9y ago
Obviously what the programmers knew to start with is of importance. But that's no property of the language (well, sure, being easy to pick up increases the risk). But no, ignoring that it is not a big assumption really. The benefits of static typing comes pretty quickly, especially if there are more than one programmer.

ageofwant 9y ago

I think the general consensus is that that is not true. Python's dynamic nature is a clear advantage it has over statically typed languages. Add the fact that you can elect to tune down the dynamism when it makes sense to with very little impact on your existing stack makes Python the technological superior choice for the majority of applications.

sidlls 9y ago
There's nothing here that tunes down the dynamism. Hints aren't statically checked or enforced. It's still possible to pass in an empty list to an int-hinted var and, e.g. have `if not var` evaluate to True (rather than raise an Exception). Type hints allow external tools to check some things, but at this point you're basically imposing static types so why not use a language with the tooling and optimizations to take advantage of that? Python is a good choice to prototype, write small (less than a few thousand lines of code) projects with non-trivial complexity, and somewhat larger projects with more boilerplate (e.g. Django webapps). Beyond that its utility diminishes until it starts to become a hindrance.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  >Type hints allow external tools to check some things, but at this point you're basically imposing static types so why not use a language with the tooling and optimizations to take advantage of that? Python's type system is, imo, currently better than Java's, and the syntax is cleaner than java's or C++s. You get all the benefits of static typing without having to put `auto` and `List<>` everywhere. And at the same time, you get all of the advantages that python has over statically typed languages that aren't haskell (like comprehensions). And, when you need to, if you're doing something that's especially tricky or dynamic or whatnot, you can fall back to untypedness. I think the closest parallel I can draw is to something like Rust. You get a huge set of guarantees for free, but can opt to do unsafe things when it's absolutely necessary, and better yet, you can start in unsafe land and then go back later and make sure your code is safe. I'm curious what tooling you feel that say, Java, has over type-annotated python.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    Hints don't provide any guarantees. It's still possible to silently and unknowingly pass the wrong type of value into any given argument, with or without the checker. The "tooling" the other languages have includes a compiler that performs these checks in a way that Hints + Checker-of-choice is unlikely (or unable) to. "What do you think these checkers do?" you might ask. The answer is: not nearly what a compiler does.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      > It's still possible to silently and unknowingly pass the wrong type of value into any given argument This is also possible in traditionally statically typed languages. Nothing stops you from doing unsafe casts or using reflection. Much like its exceedingly unlikely that you'll run across this in "normal" java or C++, its exceedingly unlikely for you to run into any issues with this in python. And, in fact, the typechecker has ways to handle unusual things like dynamically created attributes, for when that comes up. And yes I mean this quite honestly. I've seen a lot of typechecked code, some of it quite ridiculously dynamic. Typecheckers perform absolutely fine. >The "tooling" the other languages have includes a compiler that performs these checks in a way that Hints + Checker-of-choice is unlikely (or unable) to. What way is that? Typechecking is static analysis. There's really no difference between how java or cpp does typechecking and how mypy does, other than that the python typechecker isn't installed by default. >The answer is: not nearly what a compiler does. This is not an answer.
tigershark 9y ago
Absolutely not. Python is not the technological superior choice for the majority of the applications. If you think so then your experience in different domains and application types must be very limited. The preconcept that dynamic languages are more productive is just an illusion because you can easily take shortcuts that will hamper your progress in the future. A proper typed language with HM type inference has the ability to mostly avoid writing the types with the guarantee that the compiler will catch most of the pitfalls. And if you don't do any logic error pretty much every time your code just works. Saying that in a million line application Python is a better choice than F# or Haskell it's frankly ridiculous in my opinion.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  Empirically, there are a lot more million line python codebases than F# or haskell codebases, in fact I can name multiple million line python codebases, and 0 F# or haskell codebases. Given that, logic would indicate some sort of failure on the part of haskell and F#, or they would see wider adoption among the large codebases where they are so useful. Do you disagree?
  - tigershark 9y ago
    Given how much smaller is the F# community and how much more you can crank in less lines of codes in F# I can believe it. Between C# and F# there is about an order of magnitude of difference in the LOCs for big projects and C# and Python are comparable from this metric.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      It appears you missed my point. I can't think of a 100kloc f# or Haskell codebase, so even if they were 10x as terse as python, which they aren't, python comes out ahead. If they're so much better, why don't people use them?
      - kod 9y ago
        I can think of 100kloc Scala codebases, e.g. Kafka. People do use ML family languages, and they are better. There are plenty of non-technical reasons they aren't as widespread as dynamic languages or shitty static languages.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

c22 9y ago

The first language I learned (after Applesoft BASIC) was C. I wrote C for a long time. About 6 years ago I picked up Python. Today I find it much easier and much more pleasant to spin up a new idea in Python, to the point that it is my default choice for new projects with fuzzily defined goals. None of my ideas have become companies, but I could totally see just sticking with Python even past the point that it became unwieldy.

tigershark 9y ago
Between c and Python there is an ocean of languages...
- c22 9y ago
  True enough. I've dabbled in several. These are just the two I happen to have the most experience in and the ones that seemed relevant to my point.
- walrus1066 9y ago
  I'm with the OP on this, I've experience with Java, C#, Python & C++. I'm a big fan of rapid prototyping with Python to map out problem domains, and once the domain has been mapped properly, rewriting in a statically typed language if necessary. Python is much better for prototyping than the other langs I've used. Because the syntax is almost pseudocode, and the duck-typing makes a lot of design patterns and boilerplate obsolete, so I can dedicate my headspace to the problem at hand. Right tool for the right job, as they say.