5 ms·
This is neat, but why not just use Go!
by artursapek 12y ago
This is neat, but why not just use Go!
- skj 12y agoI am an avid gopher, but this is not a useful response. Believe it or not, there are many places and reasons where Python works out better than Go, and making it a bit easier to use Python in those situations is valuable.
- pekk 12y agoGo is neat, but why not just use Haskell? (etc.)
- clubhi 12y agoHaskell is ok, but you should check out the dynamic nature of Python
- jbeja 12y agoI think that the dynamic nature of python is why some folks prefer haskell over it.
- Dewie 12y agoYou should check out the dynamic nature of Typeable. "The module Data.Dynamic uses Typeable for an implementation of dynamics." http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.7.0.0/docs/Data-Typeable.html http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.7.0.0/docs/Data-Ty...
- raverbashing 12y agoMonads Or more specifically, how non-intuitive it is to use the IO stuff I don't care what it uses, or what is it called, I care about being able to use it with what I know So yeah, I'll go for Go instead of Haskell
- Peaker 12y agoThe IO stuff has almost nothing to do with monads. It is unfamiliar, but if you use static typing, at least reap the benefits of better error checking, no runtime null dereferences, etc.
- frowaway001 12y agoYeah, because why would we ever need the compiler to help us identifying operations which make it harder to reason about our programs!
- uniclaude 12y agoThe case of a large, already existing Python codebase comes to mind.
- smnrchrds 12y agoYou make Python sound like FORTRAN. :)
- yen223 12y agoYou're getting downvoted, but I think you have a point. Any attempts to enact type-checking in a language that doesn't require it is doomed to failure. You'll get all the safety of a dynamic language, with the flexibility of a typed language.
- frowaway001 12y ago> You'll get all the safety of a dynamic language, with the flexibility of a typed language. That sounds a pretty good description of Go, so I'm wondering what his point is in the first place.
- _random_ 12y agoStatic-typed languages are not very good for scripting and "gluing" systems.
- ant_sz 12y agoerr...It's a tradeoff. I think when the first dynamic programing language was invented, the loose typing system must be thought as a big advantage. Type checking is necessary in some cases, but I really enjoy dynamic typing a lot. So I think a bit tradeoff like this is acceptable. After all, we have to tradeoff everywhere when it comes to computer science such as the time-space tradeoff of an algorithm.
- Peaker 12y agoI think people who enjoy dynamic typing have had bad experiences with bad static type systems earlier (C, C++, Java). Once you use a good static type system (ML, OCaml, Haskell) you see that dynamic typing isn't responsible for the joy, but the ability to express rich ideas without repeating redundant type declarations.
- hcarvalhoalves 12y agoI would like to know why in every post about Python on HN there's someone shouting "just use Go"!
- Dewie 12y agoIt seems like quite a few people who are used to dynamic languages have found out that static typing and verbosity aren't strictly synonyms by using Go.