3 ms·

The confusion is no doubt intentional in order to make dynamic languages sound safer than they really are. There really is only one type: PyObject.

acdha 8y ago
This statement wouldn't be helpful even if wasn't incorrect. You clearly don't like Python but accusing other people of malice for not sharing your personal taste is not going to accomplish whatever you believe it will.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- willtim 8y ago
  This is about being open and honest to stakeholders about Pythons strengths and weaknesses. Sure, I won't ever get the terminology used in your community to change, but at least you will know that there are people who find it rather uncomfortable and disingenuous.
  - acdha 8y ago
    Disingenuous is lying about people’s motives to make your opinion seem more like a truth. It’s okay not to understand Python or typing as well as you think but that should be a chance to learn rather than your cue to accuse people of malice for giving the world free software.
    - willtim 8y ago
      Go read the link I posted by Professor Robert Harper before accusing me or anyone else of not understanding type theory. Whether you like it or not, technology does compete for mindshare. Haskell and OCaml are also free software.
      - acdha 8y ago
        Prof. Harper didn’t mention Python. He definitely didn’t accuse people of dishonest advocacy. Stop using his name to support your comments. You could try to do something positive like talk about how Haskell does something neat which Python doesn’t support. I can think of several examples which are far more interesting than arguing over whether your personal definition of “strong typing” is universally shared.
        willtim 8y ago
        > He definitely didn’t accuse people of dishonest advocacy. Have you actually read it? "Like most marketing tactics, it’s designed to confuse, rather than enlighten, and to create an impression, rather than inform."
        acdha 8y ago
        You really aren’t willing to avoid personal attacks, are you? It’s not doing anything productive. The main thing I took away from that post was his belief that the static / dynamic divide was a false dichotomy. I do agree, however, that I was incorrectly remembering it too charitably: he and you are both willing to distract by accusing other people of acting in bad faith without bringing evidence to support such a strong accusation.
        willtim 8y ago
        I missed off a smiley, nothing personal was meant by it. Some of your posts have appeared abrasive too. Let's just agree to disagree.

acdha 8y ago

This statement wouldn't be helpful even if wasn't incorrect. You clearly don't like Python but accusing other people of malice for not sharing your personal taste is not going to accomplish whatever you believe it will.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
willtim 8y ago
This is about being open and honest to stakeholders about Pythons strengths and weaknesses. Sure, I won't ever get the terminology used in your community to change, but at least you will know that there are people who find it rather uncomfortable and disingenuous.
- acdha 8y ago
  Disingenuous is lying about people’s motives to make your opinion seem more like a truth. It’s okay not to understand Python or typing as well as you think but that should be a chance to learn rather than your cue to accuse people of malice for giving the world free software.
  - willtim 8y ago
    Go read the link I posted by Professor Robert Harper before accusing me or anyone else of not understanding type theory. Whether you like it or not, technology does compete for mindshare. Haskell and OCaml are also free software.
    - acdha 8y ago
      Prof. Harper didn’t mention Python. He definitely didn’t accuse people of dishonest advocacy. Stop using his name to support your comments. You could try to do something positive like talk about how Haskell does something neat which Python doesn’t support. I can think of several examples which are far more interesting than arguing over whether your personal definition of “strong typing” is universally shared.
      - willtim 8y ago
        > He definitely didn’t accuse people of dishonest advocacy. Have you actually read it? "Like most marketing tactics, it’s designed to confuse, rather than enlighten, and to create an impression, rather than inform."
        acdha 8y ago
        You really aren’t willing to avoid personal attacks, are you? It’s not doing anything productive. The main thing I took away from that post was his belief that the static / dynamic divide was a false dichotomy. I do agree, however, that I was incorrectly remembering it too charitably: he and you are both willing to distract by accusing other people of acting in bad faith without bringing evidence to support such a strong accusation.
        willtim 8y ago
        I missed off a smiley, nothing personal was meant by it. Some of your posts have appeared abrasive too. Let's just agree to disagree.