3 ms·

> "what I want" is merely to support the article's assertion that the current version of type hints Python provides is confusing and not very good. What I am h

> "what I want" is merely to support the article's assertion that the current version of type hints Python provides is confusing and not very good. What I am having trouble to grasp is: if you understand that Python is not a statically typed language, and if you claim that you do not want to "turn" Python into such, why do you keep conflating type hinting with type checking? They are two separate things. That is the nature of the game. Do you have criticisms about limitations from mypy, fine, but then you are not talking about issues with type hinting but merely the type checker tool.

the_af 5y ago
> "What I am having trouble to grasp is [...] why do you keep conflating type hinting with type checking?" It's not my business to help you with your trouble grasping things, but why do you think I'm conflating type hinting with type checking? I specifically asked in this comments section what type hinting meant if not what I thought, and was told by several people "it's just standardized comments", which I then explained was unsatisfying (and other people agreed with me). > "you are not talking about issues with type hinting but merely the type checker tool" How about both? Let me suggest you a more productive use of your time: address the article's complaints as a top-level comment (which I see you haven't yet). I suppose you're more interested in the article's topic than in correcting my alleged misconceptions?
- rglullis 5y ago
  > How about both? Because the "issues" with type hinting that you are talking about are only based on what you wished it was, not on what it is or what it could become! Ask yourself this: what about the python's type hinting story you think could be improved without turning python into a statically typed language? What about the python's type checking story that is missing or broken and that is attributable to the language and not to the tool? > I suppose you're more interested in the article's topic. Quite frankly, no. My motivation for the conversation now is mostly to see how long is going to take you to realize that you are merely wishing that your motorboat could fly like a hydroplane. It's not about "misconceptions", it's about you complaining about something not meeting your unfounded expectations .
  - the_af 5y ago
    > "Quite frankly, no. My motivation for the conversation now is mostly to see how long is going to take you to realize [...]" Oh, I see. Well, I have no interest in that kind of conversation. Goodbye.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      Please don't read it as snark. It was not my intention. What I am trying to say is that perhaps the lesson you could take from this it's to not think that something is "inferior" or "needs fixing" just because it doesn't immediately meet your expectations. It isn't Python's fault that you have to use at the job even though you don't like it. It isn't Python's fault that you have to use even though you are absolutely certain that dynamically typed languages are worse. It isn't Python's fault that type hints are just hints and can not become a full-fledged type system. It isn't Python's fault that mypy is still not mature enough to work reliably for you. And it certainly isn't Python's fault that your coworkers don't care about all that as much as you do.
      - the_af 5y ago
        > "What I am trying to say is that perhaps the lesson you could take" I think there's a lesson here, but it's for you rather than me. This is tiring. You keep making stuff up for the sake of argument. I never claimed I didn't like Python; in fact I like it. I never claimed it was Python's fault. I thought you were going to "wait until I realize". Go on waiting, then. Off you go!
        rglullis 5y ago
        I am sorry for my assumption, I just wouldn't think that someone so certain of the superiority of statically typed languages and so disappointed (with a feature that is barely a defining aspect of it) would also claim to like it. Anyway, you also had the chance to respond to other questions I made, but instead you preferred to stick to defensive retorts.

the_af 5y ago

> "What I am having trouble to grasp is [...] why do you keep conflating type hinting with type checking?" It's not my business to help you with your trouble grasping things, but why do you think I'm conflating type hinting with type checking? I specifically asked in this comments section what type hinting meant if not what I thought, and was told by several people "it's just standardized comments", which I then explained was unsatisfying (and other people agreed with me). > "you are not talking about issues with type hinting but merely the type checker tool" How about both? Let me suggest you a more productive use of your time: address the article's complaints as a top-level comment (which I see you haven't yet). I suppose you're more interested in the article's topic than in correcting my alleged misconceptions?

rglullis 5y ago
> How about both? Because the "issues" with type hinting that you are talking about are only based on what you wished it was, not on what it is or what it could become! Ask yourself this: what about the python's type hinting story you think could be improved without turning python into a statically typed language? What about the python's type checking story that is missing or broken and that is attributable to the language and not to the tool? > I suppose you're more interested in the article's topic. Quite frankly, no. My motivation for the conversation now is mostly to see how long is going to take you to realize that you are merely wishing that your motorboat could fly like a hydroplane. It's not about "misconceptions", it's about you complaining about something not meeting your unfounded expectations .
- the_af 5y ago
  > "Quite frankly, no. My motivation for the conversation now is mostly to see how long is going to take you to realize [...]" Oh, I see. Well, I have no interest in that kind of conversation. Goodbye.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    Please don't read it as snark. It was not my intention. What I am trying to say is that perhaps the lesson you could take from this it's to not think that something is "inferior" or "needs fixing" just because it doesn't immediately meet your expectations. It isn't Python's fault that you have to use at the job even though you don't like it. It isn't Python's fault that you have to use even though you are absolutely certain that dynamically typed languages are worse. It isn't Python's fault that type hints are just hints and can not become a full-fledged type system. It isn't Python's fault that mypy is still not mature enough to work reliably for you. And it certainly isn't Python's fault that your coworkers don't care about all that as much as you do.
    - the_af 5y ago
      > "What I am trying to say is that perhaps the lesson you could take" I think there's a lesson here, but it's for you rather than me. This is tiring. You keep making stuff up for the sake of argument. I never claimed I didn't like Python; in fact I like it. I never claimed it was Python's fault. I thought you were going to "wait until I realize". Go on waiting, then. Off you go!
      - rglullis 5y ago
        I am sorry for my assumption, I just wouldn't think that someone so certain of the superiority of statically typed languages and so disappointed (with a feature that is barely a defining aspect of it) would also claim to like it. Anyway, you also had the chance to respond to other questions I made, but instead you preferred to stick to defensive retorts.