3 ms·
That's one way to view it, yes. And with unsound type systems, generally, that's the workflow. Your program is a proof that the interface can be implemented.
by oddity 6y ago
That's one way to view it, yes. And with unsound type systems, generally, that's the workflow. Your program is a proof that the interface can be implemented. The challenge is that sometimes the interface doesn't express much that's interesting and, with more sound type systems, your program might be correct but inexpressible.
> That's not a problem at all, as Python's type annotations and mypy clearly demonstrate
Gradual/Optional typing is a great way to solve the split needs, but I was making the argument for why people might not want to use static typing in python even though it's available.
- rualca 6y ago> Gradual/Optional typing is a great way to solve the split needs, but I was making the argument for why people might not want to use static typing in python even though it's available. Forgive me for asking, but did you made any point that provides any basis for refusing to use static typing? I mean, failing to meet an artificial and unmettable and largely subjective bar regarding academic purity of type system implementations is not a valid argument. The average pythonista does not care about convoluted type theories if all he does is pass a string or int to a function, and doesn't want his program to blow up if they pass by mistake an int instead of a string.