4 ms·

100% agree - never really understood the movement behind adding types to Python. Type hints are a useless complexity that yield little return. If you want types

100% agree - never really understood the movement behind adding types to Python. Type hints are a useless complexity that yield little return. If you want types, use something else other than Python. The whole thesis behind Python is simple is better than complex.

mjr00 4y ago
How is "this function takes a string and returns a float" more complex than "this function takes any data type and returns an unspecified data type"?
Inityx 4y ago
On the one hand yeah, I agree with this, but on the other hand you have a lot of enormous software projects written in Python that are decidedly not simple, and would be extremely difficult to completely rewrite in a different language. Type hints do offer some value in this circumstance, by making it easier for disparate groups to modify the same large codebase though static analysis.
bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
They're great for autocomplete, but that's pretty much it
forrestthewoods 4y ago
> If you want types, use something else other than Python. Python is still strongly typed. Me: what type does this argument need to be? Python: you have to figure that out Me: I just pass whatever I want? Python: Oh no. Usually only a single specific type is supported. But you have to guess what it is. Me: what if I get it wrong? Python: the program crashes at runtime
- lifewallet_dev 4y ago
  You don't understand what "strongly typed" means... I give you a hint, `"1" == 1` is a type error in Python but "okay" in JavaScript because this one is "weakly typed", you're confusing "dynamic typing vs static typing" with "strongly typed vs weakly typed".
  - forrestthewoods 4y ago
    Python is a strongly, dynamically typed language. Most Python type errors could be caught by a static analyzer. If Pythons type hint system wasn’t a disappointment it would help more people catch more bugs when they’re written. Instead Python endlessly throws exceptions at runtime because a programmer got their types wrong. Thanks for the hint.
sirsinsalot 4y ago
I find it best to see type hinting as "living documentation". Yeah, you can ignore it, it is Python afterall, but if you want the IDE/tools to have better more helpful hints ... use machine readable hint documentation. I'd argue if your functions are full of type-assert like guards, _then_ use another language!
- bb88 4y ago
  I just saw someone on Twitter post a "IntegerType" class which did exactly this, including capturing the sign -- because he couldn't trust int().
retrac 4y ago
> useless complexity that yield little return Typechecking allows certain errors to be detected at typecheck time rather than at runtime. I don't personally consider that useless. E.g. A mistake I just made. I'm working in a language I don't know too well right now with strict static typing. The file read function takes a handle. If I pass it a string of the file name, rather than the handle result from file open, it just doesn't compile. In most dynamic languages, that error would not be detected until it executes.
- ReflectedImage 4y ago
  The changes you need to make to a Python program to enable it to be type checked result in more bugs being added than the type checker removes leaving you at a net negative. Type checking is just a really poor way to ensure program correctness until you start using an exceptionally strongly typed language like Haskell. You use types in C / C++ / Java because the compiler needs them to work not because it's a good idea.
  - mjr00 4y ago
    > The changes you need to make to a Python program to enable it to be type checked result in more bugs being added than the type checker removes leaving you at a net negative. This claim doesn't make sense to me. Assuming mypy is regularly run as part of CI, why would adding type annotations cause more bugs than leaving it off?

mjr00 4y ago

How is "this function takes a string and returns a float" more complex than "this function takes any data type and returns an unspecified data type"?

Inityx 4y ago

On the one hand yeah, I agree with this, but on the other hand you have a lot of enormous software projects written in Python that are decidedly not simple, and would be extremely difficult to completely rewrite in a different language. Type hints do offer some value in this circumstance, by making it easier for disparate groups to modify the same large codebase though static analysis.

bobbylarrybobby 4y ago

They're great for autocomplete, but that's pretty much it

forrestthewoods 4y ago

> If you want types, use something else other than Python. Python is still strongly typed. Me: what type does this argument need to be? Python: you have to figure that out Me: I just pass whatever I want? Python: Oh no. Usually only a single specific type is supported. But you have to guess what it is. Me: what if I get it wrong? Python: the program crashes at runtime

lifewallet_dev 4y ago
You don't understand what "strongly typed" means... I give you a hint, `"1" == 1` is a type error in Python but "okay" in JavaScript because this one is "weakly typed", you're confusing "dynamic typing vs static typing" with "strongly typed vs weakly typed".
- forrestthewoods 4y ago
  Python is a strongly, dynamically typed language. Most Python type errors could be caught by a static analyzer. If Pythons type hint system wasn’t a disappointment it would help more people catch more bugs when they’re written. Instead Python endlessly throws exceptions at runtime because a programmer got their types wrong. Thanks for the hint.

sirsinsalot 4y ago

I find it best to see type hinting as "living documentation". Yeah, you can ignore it, it is Python afterall, but if you want the IDE/tools to have better more helpful hints ... use machine readable hint documentation. I'd argue if your functions are full of type-assert like guards, _then_ use another language!

bb88 4y ago
I just saw someone on Twitter post a "IntegerType" class which did exactly this, including capturing the sign -- because he couldn't trust int().

retrac 4y ago

> useless complexity that yield little return Typechecking allows certain errors to be detected at typecheck time rather than at runtime. I don't personally consider that useless. E.g. A mistake I just made. I'm working in a language I don't know too well right now with strict static typing. The file read function takes a handle. If I pass it a string of the file name, rather than the handle result from file open, it just doesn't compile. In most dynamic languages, that error would not be detected until it executes.

ReflectedImage 4y ago
The changes you need to make to a Python program to enable it to be type checked result in more bugs being added than the type checker removes leaving you at a net negative. Type checking is just a really poor way to ensure program correctness until you start using an exceptionally strongly typed language like Haskell. You use types in C / C++ / Java because the compiler needs them to work not because it's a good idea.
- mjr00 4y ago
  > The changes you need to make to a Python program to enable it to be type checked result in more bugs being added than the type checker removes leaving you at a net negative. This claim doesn't make sense to me. Assuming mypy is regularly run as part of CI, why would adding type annotations cause more bugs than leaving it off?