(I don't think that's the whole point of dynamic languages. C++ has RTTI and .NET shipped with reflection as a fundamental construct...) I need to write code t

(I don't think that's the whole point of dynamic languages. C++ has RTTI and .NET shipped with reflection as a fundamental construct...) I need to write code that talks to libraries today. I press dot and within 10 milliseconds I see an encyclopedic list of functions, complete with verifiable hints as to their structure. I type what looks like it makes sense, run the compiler that takes as much time to compile than python.exe takes to load, and a lot of the time, if the code compiles it just runs perfectly. I do not need to wade through verbose Doxygen boilerplate, nor page through source code, nor dance around fake json schemas. I do not need to write unit tests that, in many cases, serve merely to exercise the interpreter to make sure it hits everywhere I might have forgotten a parenthesis. It just friggin' works because a community has decided it's important to do things this way. So many of these "time-saving" languages are a full decade behind this reality. Right now it's definitely not enough. There's 30 years of idiotic cruft behind Windows bitmaps and it's STILL faster and easier to resize a jpeg in C# than using the insane Python libraries. Meanwhile C++ got "auto" and C# got "var" and "dynamic." At that point I picked my winners, there are of course other options. And when I write a library, doing it this way just seems like basic human respect. Sure: you're welcome to the source and here are some lovely docs. But if the only way to say whether something takes a string or bytes and that it varies between Python 2.7 and 3.x is in a README file, something's gone wrong. Like environmentalism we need to look at "total cost" before we declare something a net savings of energy.