3 ms·
> "Hard to scale" isn't really a coherent argument against any mainstream programming language. It is odd that you would say that, because it is a very common
by Thiez 6y ago
> "Hard to scale" isn't really a coherent argument against any mainstream programming language.
It is odd that you would say that, because it is a very common complaint about languages with dynamic typing. As the program grows larger static typechecking becomes more and more helpful.
- pydry 6y agoThat is one of the many interpretations of "not scalable" I suppose... Regardless, python has tools to do that. Instagram and Dropbox in particular have written quite a lot about their internal usage and built and open sourced additional tooling (e.g. MonkeyType - that lets your code type annotate itself).
- youerbt 6y agoFact that they had to do that does prove the point, doesn't it? How about organizations that hit the scaling point, but are not big enough to invest into tooling like that?
- pydry 6y agoNo. MonkeyType is open source. It's exactly the kind of tooling that makes your life easier if you have multiple teams and wanted to start enforcing static type checks with MyPy and having an IDE that understood your types.
- youerbt 6y agoSo before it was open sourced, all those companies that couldn't pull it off themselves had scaling problems or not? So before Python had types was it hard to scale or not? Seems like you are defending "Python with types and lots of tooling" rather than Python "nice and simple language (until not)".