4 ms·

If you want Python to be like TypeScript, why don't you just write a typescript then?

by 7bit 1y ago

Philpax 1y ago
Personally, I do; my only interactions with Python are unwilling (work or AI-related code). Given that I don't have much of a choice in the matter, I'd like to see Python improve as a language and as an ecosystem. I hope that one day I will not feel dread upon encountering it in the wild.
echelon 1y ago
Either python needs to be a language geared at code no longer than 1000 loc, or it needs tools to enable safely building large scale apps.
- zahlman 1y ago
  Setuptools comes to around 100kloc now (per a naive search and `wc` of the .py files in a new environment) and installs without a hitch for everyone. Pip, nearly double that. Yes, both of those are heavily using vendoring, but because of bootstrapping problems because they are the default build tool and package installer respectively. (And quite a bit of devendoring would be possible if some system maintainers didn't insist on "building from source" when there is only Python code. Yes, technically pre-compiling .py to .pyc can be considered "building", but pip would already do that during installation.) If they didn't have to worry about those issues (or the additional Pip issue of "how do you get the packages for Pip's dependencies if you don't already have Pip?"), they would install and run just fine from a series of wheels that are all pure Python code. For that matter, one of those dependencies, `pyparsing`, is around 10k lines installed (and the repository is much larger with tests etc.). That's with it not having any dependencies of its own. There is no real barrier anywhere around the 1k loc mark. The problems large projects run into have more subtle causes.
mamcx 1y ago
Because typescript is not python. Look, is correct to understand that the BEST way, the BEST refactoring of all, is to change to a language + libraries that fix core issues (similar how you can't outrun a bad diet you can't outrun bad semantics) BUT, also change it means lose a lot of nice things. For example I move from python to F# and then Rust, for what I say that is now the best overall decision at all, BUT I miss dearly Django (and instant run and REPL) IF I could get Django (that means transitively use python) and get better type system and perf from it, I could consider it and surely use it, like "python get as swift or go but with rust algebraic types, whatever it means to get here and yet is Django and python. ok? Is unreasonable? but sincerely, it will nice if the best ideas get retrofitted in other languages because, well, I wish everyone get as more nice things as possible instead of keep with suboptimal options (that is what I say: breaking languages is not something that must be forbidden forever) Is unreasonable? (I say again) could be, but I think is a good thing to explore. Maybe is not that much, and if at the end things get better, great!

If you want Python to be like TypeScript, why don't you just write a typescript then?

by 7bit 1y ago

If you want Python to be like TypeScript, why don't you just write a typescript then?

Personally, I do; my only interactions with Python are unwilling (work or AI-related code). Given that I don't have much of a choice in the matter, I'd like to see Python improve as a language and as an ecosystem. I hope that one day I will not feel dread upon encountering it in the wild.

echelon 1y ago

Either python needs to be a language geared at code no longer than 1000 loc, or it needs tools to enable safely building large scale apps.

zahlman 1y ago
Setuptools comes to around 100kloc now (per a naive search and `wc` of the .py files in a new environment) and installs without a hitch for everyone. Pip, nearly double that. Yes, both of those are heavily using vendoring, but because of bootstrapping problems because they are the default build tool and package installer respectively. (And quite a bit of devendoring would be possible if some system maintainers didn't insist on "building from source" when there is only Python code. Yes, technically pre-compiling .py to .pyc can be considered "building", but pip would already do that during installation.) If they didn't have to worry about those issues (or the additional Pip issue of "how do you get the packages for Pip's dependencies if you don't already have Pip?"), they would install and run just fine from a series of wheels that are all pure Python code. For that matter, one of those dependencies, `pyparsing`, is around 10k lines installed (and the repository is much larger with tests etc.). That's with it not having any dependencies of its own. There is no real barrier anywhere around the 1k loc mark. The problems large projects run into have more subtle causes.

mamcx 1y ago

Because typescript is not python. Look, is correct to understand that the BEST way, the BEST refactoring of all, is to change to a language + libraries that fix core issues (similar how you can't outrun a bad diet you can't outrun bad semantics) BUT, also change it means lose a lot of nice things. For example I move from python to F# and then Rust, for what I say that is now the best overall decision at all, BUT I miss dearly Django (and instant run and REPL) IF I could get Django (that means transitively use python) and get better type system and perf from it, I could consider it and surely use it, like "python get as swift or go but with rust algebraic types, whatever it means to get here and yet is Django and python. ok? Is unreasonable? but sincerely, it will nice if the best ideas get retrofitted in other languages because, well, I wish everyone get as more nice things as possible instead of keep with suboptimal options (that is what I say: breaking languages is not something that must be forbidden forever) Is unreasonable? (I say again) could be, but I think is a good thing to explore. Maybe is not that much, and if at the end things get better, great!