On 06/17/2018 01:56 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Jim Lee <jle...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/17/2018 01:35 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote:
Jim Lee <jle...@gmail.com>:
IMHO, trying to shoehorn static type checking on top of a dynamically
typed language shows that the wrong language was chosen for the job.
I'm also saddened by the type hinting initiative. When you try to be
best for everybody, you end up being best for nobody. The niche Python
has successfully occupied is huge. Why risk it all by trying to take the
whole cake?
Did you complain when function annotations were introduced back in 2006?
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/
That's TWELVE YEARS ago. Over in the Node.js world, that's ... uhh,
actually that's longer ago than Node.js has even been around. Another
trendy language is Go... oh wait, that wasn't around in 2006 either.
Type annotations have been in Python for nearly twelve years; ten if
you count the actual release of Python 3.0. The thing that changed
more recently was that *non-type* annotations were deprecated, since
very few use-cases were found. When did the shoehorning happen,
exactly?
ChrisA
What does time have to do with anything? I wasn't using Python in 2006. A
bad idea is a bad idea, regardless of *when* it was conceived.
You talk about "risk it all by trying to take the whole cake" as if
annotations are a change. But if they were already around before you
first met the language, then they're just part of the language. You
might as well argue against the += operator or list comprehensions.
ChrisA
You seem to have lost the attribution to those comments in your reply.
I wasn't the one who talked about
"risk it all by trying to take the whole cake".
-Jim
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
