3 ms·

I completely agree with you. However I've always found the dynamic typing approach to be a bit at odds with python3 -c "import this" | head -4 | tail -1 I t

I completely agree with you. However I've always found the dynamic typing approach to be a bit at odds with python3 -c "import this" | head -4 | tail -1 I think the fast and loose style that Python enables is perfect for small scripts and one off data science notebooks and the like. But having worked in large codebases which adopt the same style, and ones that avoid it through static typing and in some cases async/await, the difference in productivity I've noticed in both me and my collaborators is too stark for me to ignore. I think I should've been more nuanced in my comments praising async/await. I believe that what I say is valid in large IO-bound applications which go beyond basic CRUD operations. In general it depends, of course.

pansa2 2y ago
> I think the fast and loose style that Python enables is perfect for small scripts and one off data science notebooks and the like. Agreed - I only use Python for scripts like this, preferring statically-typed, AOT-compiled languages for larger programs. That’s why I think Python should have adopted full coroutines - it should play to its strengths and stick to its fast-and-loose style. However, the people who decide how the language evolves are all employees of large companies using it for large codebases - their needs are very different from people who are only using Python for small scripts.