6 ms·

Yeah, isn't that amazing? I really think this "type" idea is a good one. I wonder if other languages have thought about following Python's lead and adding a typ

• rattray 11y ago
  Would you like to reconsider your tone?
  • reeboo 11y ago
    No, but let me clarify. Bolting on a form of type checking to a weakly typed language seems orthogonal to the nature of a language like Python. If you find yourself saying "I wish I had a type system in this code base, its getting pretty big and a compiler that does type checking at compile time sure would make my life easier" maybe you should think about using a more appropriate tool. I use Python a lot and it has its uses, but adding this type hint stuff just seems like an enabler for causing myself pain and denial when I should be using a more strongly typed language.
    • swhipple 11y ago
      Static typing is considered unpythonic, but the typecheck library is closer to a sanity-checking model (like using assert). The advantage is that instead of the checks being in the body, they can be moved to the function header. It supports things such as checking ranges or regex matches, rather than just object types. Even if people are only using it as a shim for what could be static typechecking, I think there's something to say about the practicality of it existing, if only for the reason that their ecosystem might already be Python-based.
    • dangirsh 11y ago
      Though I agree with your sentiment, I must mention that there is nothing "weak" about Python's type system. You likely meant "dynamic", not "weak". See here: wiki.python.org/moin/Why%20is%20Python%20a%20dynamic%20language%20and%20also%20a%20strongly%20typed%20language
      • aapycgarb 11y ago
        Python's type system is weak whether they self-identify that way or not. Types are implicitly converted in a variety of cases, notably True-ness. Meanwhile, runtime type identity is kind of meaningless; classes and individual objects can have their behavior meaningfully changed at runtime. The most you can say about any variable in Python is that it is a descendant of 'object' or else some primitive type.
        • Veedrac 11y ago
          If Python's `if` is weakly typed, then Rust's `for` and `.` are weakly typed. Few would say that, though.
          • cma 11y ago
            One place where Python is pretty weakly typed is going the other way, where it accepts things like: true + true * 2 - false / true, even outside of if statements. I've definitely been bitten by this before, accidentally passing in a book parameter instead of an int, and having some math work initially and then blow up months later. Knuth argues against this kind of implicit bool to integer conversion in Concrete Mathematics.
            • ubernostrum 11y ago
              Nitpick: this isn't an implicit conversion. There's a lot of history of languages without a real boolean type using integer 0 and 1 as the sentinel values indicating false-ness and true-ness. And Python, in a nod to that, implements bool as a subclass of int, of which only two instances can ever exist (with False having a value of 0 and True having a value of 1). So this isn't weak typing -- isinstance(True, int) is True in Python, and operations like the ones you're mentioning work because of that, for the same reason any other subclass of int would work.
              • cma 11y ago
                Interesting, so technically isn't weak typing, but in practice to me it is a distinction without a difference. You could make int a subtype of string, and allow things like "1" + 1 == "11" and end up with many of the same problems of weakly typed languages.
    • rattray 11y ago
      I agree with everything you said here. Personally, I wish this had been your original post. It seems like a helpful jumping-off point for constructive conversation.
  • Sir_Substance 11y ago
    Wow, he used sarcasm to make a point that was both humorous and relevant, and you're reacting like an imam hearing a joke about muhammad. Maybe you should reconsider yours?
• rnnr 11y ago
  Yeah, imagine how retarded the type systems of the popular static typed languages were, that lead to such a baby-booming of dynamic languages. People were traumatized so hard that took years to reconsider a middle ground.
  • rtpg 11y ago
    I think it's always been about how annoying it is to write out types. If you look at how popular go is among pythonistas, it kind of shows that the issue was really a lack of type inference more than anything else.
    • rnnr 11y ago
      I share the same opinion, even sth as simple as TI makes things so much better. It's not only about writing but also reading the code. A good summary what's wrong with the type systems of the java era: http://www.slideshare.net/ScottWlaschin/c-light http://www.slideshare.net/ScottWlaschin/c-light
      • rtpg 11y ago
        what a great presentation, very powerful stuff
  • reeboo 11y ago
    That's an interesting way of looking at it.
• rurban 11y ago
  > Following Python's lead and adding a type system Joking? Python really is almost the last of all dynamic languages to come up with syntax for that. common lisp, scheme, perl, ruby, javascript, php have all syntax for optional typing already, only Guido was against it for years. Which eventually led to Go being developed by Google, and python's downfall. They try to catchup now, but this proposal is only 10% of an optional type system. I miss the inferencer and the optimizations still.