On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:23:30 PM UTC+1, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 29/10/2014 19:03, Kiuhnm wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:19:11 PM UTC+1, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > >> Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com>: > >> > >>> Yes, but if it's official, the standard library (large parts of it, at > >>> least) will use it, which will make it a lot more useful than it > >>> currently is. > >> > >> I doubt it. Python should decide if it wants to stay Python or become > >> another Java. I don't really believe in this "be everything for > >> everybody" thing. You'll only become nothing for anybody. > >> > >> > >> Marko > > > > 1) Java is not optionally typed. > > 2) Having optional types is not "being everything for everybody", it's just > > being smart. > > > > Regarding 2) Python has somehow managed without optional types for over > 20 years so it's my belief that they're not the panacea that so many > people think they are. Sure if they get implemented and if they improve > Python then I'm all for them, but I'm not holding my breath.
The only thing I know is that I programmed in ASM and C++ for many years and I liked it. Then I moved to C#, Haskell, Scala, and many other languages. Then I learned Python and I liked it. Then I tried Dart (with optional static typing) and liked it very much. Finally, I've come back to Python and I don't like it anymore like I used to. Dart's syntax is not on par with Python's but its type system is so lightweight and non intrusive that it's a joy to work with it and I miss it. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
