3 ms·

That's why I resist python types. A lot of the usefulness and interestingness of Python is in its dynamic features which aid in rapidly developing complex syste

That's why I resist python types. A lot of the usefulness and interestingness of Python is in its dynamic features which aid in rapidly developing complex systems. Hard to imagine a strictly typed future for Python, when you then have little to trade off for its bad performance and lack of real concurrency. JavaScript has seen success as a typed language because it has being "the exclusive frontend language" going for it, and v8 is high performance. And the dynamic capabilities of JavaScript were never that interesting or powerful.

ryanianian 5y ago
> Hard to imagine a strictly typed future for Python On the contrary, the dynamic nature of python can make it seem like inaccessible black-magic where you don't even know where to look in the code to see what's even possible. Stronger types will empower users to understand their ecosystems. I've spent countless hours in rails/django land trying to figure out what's even possible with an object that the ORM or whatever gives me. The human-flavored docs kinda outline it, but if you're in IDE-land, context-switching to prose isn't productive. Types help humans develop and debug, but they make library authors jump through acrobatics to express what their magic does. This is a limitation of the type-checker implementation(s) not having a strong syntax or notion to capture the runtime-dynamic polymorphism, but it doesn't mean that the concept of types is a flawed idea or not worth using when appropriate. Don't throw the baby out with the bath-water.
- shrimpx 5y ago
  I like types, but I have a hard time seeing them in Python. If I was forced to use only typed Python, I'd just use golang and get a ton of performance and concurrency that I could never get in typed Python. Good point about Django though. Django has so much historical stickiness that types probably look attractive for entrenched corporate projects that are hard to port to high performance natively typed languages.

ryanianian 5y ago

> Hard to imagine a strictly typed future for Python On the contrary, the dynamic nature of python can make it seem like inaccessible black-magic where you don't even know where to look in the code to see what's even possible. Stronger types will empower users to understand their ecosystems. I've spent countless hours in rails/django land trying to figure out what's even possible with an object that the ORM or whatever gives me. The human-flavored docs kinda outline it, but if you're in IDE-land, context-switching to prose isn't productive. Types help humans develop and debug, but they make library authors jump through acrobatics to express what their magic does. This is a limitation of the type-checker implementation(s) not having a strong syntax or notion to capture the runtime-dynamic polymorphism, but it doesn't mean that the concept of types is a flawed idea or not worth using when appropriate. Don't throw the baby out with the bath-water.

shrimpx 5y ago
I like types, but I have a hard time seeing them in Python. If I was forced to use only typed Python, I'd just use golang and get a ton of performance and concurrency that I could never get in typed Python. Good point about Django though. Django has so much historical stickiness that types probably look attractive for entrenched corporate projects that are hard to port to high performance natively typed languages.