If typing is a good thing, why not make it an optional first-class part of the language? Maybe make strong typing a one liner option at the top of a source file? This growing maze of modules and recommendations is so unwieldy. For example, the typing module works kind of in conjunction with language elements that aren’t what newbs learn in Python 101, like type specifiers in function args. I feel like this stuff is driving Python away from simplicity.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't get this complaint.

Python is not adding typing, it's just improving on its static type checker. Nothing is really changing at runtime. Even if your type annotations are completely wrong, your code will run just fine. It's up for the developers and the team to know how much they will benefit from adopting it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not complaining, just reflecting that it is weird to me. The static type checker is almost an admission that type checking is a Good Thing, but Python continues to resist adding runtime checking. Modules like typing and Protocol don’t seem to do anything at runtime, and because of that are deeply weird to me - what kind of include doesn’t have runtime code? I haven’t seen anything quite like it in any other language I’ve coded in. It just seems included for the coders’ IDE to throw warnings, and that’s it.

Then again, it’s entirely possible I just don’t get around much. I’m not a software guy, I’m hardware, and occasionally I’ll write a tool or website to help with a specific task.

I suppose the alternative is just as weird or weirder, where there are almost two separate languages, one strongly typed and one not typed at all.

[–] pileghoff 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How would they add runtime checking without breaking all existing code?

But I think warning people is a good start, because those checks can be added to your CI pipeline and reject any incoming code that contains warnings. That way you can enforce type checking for a subset of modules and keep backwards compatibility.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

By making it opt-in. But that's not much different from static typing then, except that it won't actually work when you screw up typing

[–] lysdexic 2 points 1 year ago

It’s very weird to me that Python, as an inherently untyped language

I don't think this is true. Python is dynamically typed, but types exist. More importantly, Python is the poster child of duck typing. What is duck typing if not a way to implicitly specify protocols? If you're relying on protocols to work, why not have tests for it? If you want to test protocols, aren't you actually doing type checks?

If typing is a good thing,

...which undoubtedly is.

(...) why not make it an optional first-class part of the language?

It already is, isn't it?

But some people already have Python code that does not do type checking. What would be the point of refusing to run that code?

[–] sirdorius 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Python provides flexibility. You want to use it for fast experiments in a jupiter notebook? Skip types. You're doing a months long backend project? Add types, either through implicit types (protocols) or explicit types.

I don't see how flexibility is a bad thing. Don't want it? Don't use it. You can still use it in the simple way, like 30 years ago, it's just providing more options to be used in different contexts.

Considering Python is almost as old as C++, I would say that Python has done a much better job at incorporating new features in a sound architectural way compared to C++, while keeping new features at the same complexity level as the older ones. Or compared to javascript, which let a spinoff language emerge (something that Van Rossum very much wanted to avoid with mypy) and drive it towards adopting some features that were being asked for years (ie classes in ES6)