On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Mario Figueiredo <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <54c83ab4$0$12982$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
> steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info says...
>>
>> Mario Figueiredo wrote:
>>
>> > Static analysis cannot and should not clutter executable code.
>>
>> (1) It isn't clutter. The human reader uses that information as well as the
>> compiler, interpreter, type-checker, IDE, text editor, correctness tester,
>> etc.
>>
>> (2) Algol, Ada, Boo, C, C#, C++, Cobol, Cobra, D, F#, Fantom, Fortran, Go,
>> Haskell, Java, Julia, Kotlin, Oberon, Pascal, Rust, Scala and dozens
>> (hundreds?) of other languages disagree with you.
>>
>
> Sorry. Somehow I missed this post. Only realized now from the Skip
> answer.
>
> This is simply not true!
>
> For most of the strongly typed languages (e.g. static typed languages)
Python is a strongly typed language. It checks types at runtime and
does little implicit type conversion. Strong != static.
> in that list -- C, C++, C# and Scala, the ones I know best from that
> list -- require little to no annotations in the code (and certainly no
> new explicit function or class based syntax) in order for static
> analysers to perform their thing, except perhaps on the most exotic
> static analysers.
The languages you cite don't require extra type annotations because
they already have the types in the function signatures. Here's an
example function signature in Scala:
def addInt( a:Int, b:Int ) : Int
How is that significantly different from a Python function that uses
the proposed annotations?
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
