> I don't see a real reason for type annotations from my perspective (if I wanted typed I'd use a typed language, if I wanted types indicated I'd indicate in th

> I don't see a real reason for type annotations from my perspective (if I wanted typed I'd use a typed language, if I wanted types indicated I'd indicate in the doc strings). I definitely get this perspective, but I actually use type annotations a lot. I do the vast majority of my Python development in PyCharm, and using type annotations greatly facilitates auto-complete features. It also helps me do some very simple debugging while writing, as the IDE will tell me "Hey! I don't think these types match up!", which is often enough to save me the headache of debugging. Realistically, I just want Python but with a static type system. Which is why I'm implementing that as my own project haha. > Also f-strings which I haven't used it. Oh, dude, you gotta get on board with f-strings. They're soooo much simpler than the alternatives. Just skip learning `.format` and go straight to f-strings. I moved to f-strings when they first became available a few years ago and haven't looked back since. Dataclasses are also great, IMO. I prefer algebraic data types in functional languages like Haskell or OCaml, but I think Python's dataclasses are a "good enough" solution for me to use in the meantime. I often define very simple data types and hate the default `__repr__` implementations and writing naive `__init__` functions. Dataclasses make all this much faster and, I think, more readable.