3 ms·
> No types It's pretty easy to add types to Python nowadays. I'd consider it bad practice not to do so in a large project.
by yodsanklai 2y ago
> No types
It's pretty easy to add types to Python nowadays. I'd consider it bad practice not to do so in a large project.
- seanmceligot 2y agoIt would be nice if python would show types in the documentation. Not only do I need that all the time, it would show python was taking type safety serious. For example, knowing the return type of a function is Union[DataFrame,Series] rather than simply DataFrame would save a lot of bad errors.
- zellyn 2y agoStarlark, unfortunately, does not really support (Python style) types yet. Facebook's version has some kind of types, but ideally Starlark would just learn to do mypy types.
- kccqzy 2y agoThat's only true for greenfield projects where people start a new project with types in mind. It's absolutely a nightmare for old projects because, without the need to write types, people write all kinds of code that cannot fit within what's possible in python's type annotations.
- poincaredisk 2y agoIn my opinion it's a bad practice, and rewriting code to be typeable is a good idea for refactoring. But I write Python for some time now, and I know what you mean. I have nightmares about codebases with dynamically generated class fields for example (though I heard ruby is even worse)