On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 8:57:56 AM UTC-5, Ned Batchelder wrote: >> On 9/8/17 6:12 AM, Leam Hall wrote: >> > I've read comments about Python 3 moving from the Zen of Python. I'm a >> > "plain and simple" person myself. Complexity to support what CompSci >> > folks want, which was used to describe some of the Python 3 changes, >> > doesn't help me get work done. >> >> I've heard a lot of FUD about the Python 3 transition, but this one is >> new to me. What is it that CompSci folks want that developers don't >> want, that ruined Python 3? > > TWO WORDS: "Type" and "Hints"
Fail. 1. Type hints were only added in 3.5, not Python 3.0, so this does not support the claim that Python 3 changes were made to support CS. 2. Type hints are completely optional, so this does not support the claim that Python 3 added complexity that is counter-productive to "simple" users. If you want to keep your program simple, you can: just don't use them. 3. Type hints are practical. You may not need or desire them for pet projects, but large-scale projects with a large team of developers require a large degree of testing. Static typing supports this. This is a feature for enterprise users, not theorists. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
