2 ms·

> it seems fair to expect reasonable people to dismiss it as uninteresting. Do you think that's a fair treatment of someone who disagrees with you but has been

by the_af 5y ago

> it seems fair to expect reasonable people to dismiss it as uninteresting. Do you think that's a fair treatment of someone who disagrees with you but has been respectful of your opinion so far? I realize proglang debates are flamewar territory. But I have been very careful to state I find Python type hints puzzling and less useful than they should be. It is obviously an interesting opinion shared by many others, not just me or the article's author. As a fan of statically typed languages, I do indeed find some Python programmers engage in a form of Stockholm's syndrome. It usually takes the form of the assertion "I never found a bug that was a type error". Have you or anyone you know ever said this? In my mind, the opposite statement of the one you attribute to me would be "wishful thinking and a positive attitude is enough to catch mistakes, it's not necessary to have help from automated tooling". In this day and age, I cannot disagree more.

ledauphin 5y ago
I'm very confused by your response. Where did I suggest that I don't like type systems or think automated tooling is not useful? It's precisely because I do like and use them that I find Python's static type hints to be extremely useful for large Python codebases. What I hear you saying is "Python does not offer these things". What I hope you hear me saying is "Python does, in fact, offer these things".
- the_af 5y ago
  Well, you did frame the discussion as: > I think your (and the article's) argument could be summarized as "static type annotations without automated enforcement by actually running a type checker considered harmful" It illustrates your mindset, in my opinion. I think type annotations without checking them (or without a satisfying implementation of said type checking) are mostly pointless. You also left out the part where I remarked on the dismissive tone of your reply.

by the_af 5y ago

ledauphin 5y ago

I'm very confused by your response. Where did I suggest that I don't like type systems or think automated tooling is not useful? It's precisely because I do like and use them that I find Python's static type hints to be extremely useful for large Python codebases. What I hear you saying is "Python does not offer these things". What I hope you hear me saying is "Python does, in fact, offer these things".

the_af 5y ago
Well, you did frame the discussion as: > I think your (and the article's) argument could be summarized as "static type annotations without automated enforcement by actually running a type checker considered harmful" It illustrates your mindset, in my opinion. I think type annotations without checking them (or without a satisfying implementation of said type checking) are mostly pointless. You also left out the part where I remarked on the dismissive tone of your reply.