3 ms·
...but Python is obviously typed. It has types. In fact everything has a type, and even the types are of "type" type. It has type errors. Saying it's "untyped"
by poincaredisk 2y ago
...but Python is obviously typed. It has types. In fact everything has a type, and even the types are of "type" type. It has type errors. Saying it's "untyped" invokes a wrong impression. Your usage is very non-standard in programmer circles.
What's wrong with universally understood and well defined concepts of "statically" and "dynamically" typed languages?
- lolinder 2y agoAs I said in another comment [0], it depends on what definition of types we're using. But if we're going to pedantically jump down someone's throat correcting their usage (in this case OP's usage of "untyped"), we should at least use the most pedantically correct definition, which is the one used by academics who study type systems and which pointedly excludes dynamic checks. I have no problem with people using the other terminology in casual usage—I do so myself more often than not. I do have a problem with people pedantically correcting usage that is actually more correct than their preferred usage. I dislike pedantry in general, but I especially dislike incorrect pedantry. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42367659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42367659
- c-cube 2y agoIt's not "obviously" typed. Values in python have (runtime) types, sure. But contrast that with a statically typed language in which expressions (and functions) have types. Expressions in python do not have types at all (at least before annotations were added).