(This is a fragment of an email that I sent to Guido earlier, I mention
this here so that Guido can skip reading it. Of course, I recognize that
most people here already know all this - but since it relates to the
recent discussion about the value of type checking, I'd like to post it
here as a kind of "manifesto" of why Python is the way it is.)
Strongly-typed languages such as C++ and Java require up-front
declaration of everything. It is the nature of such languages that there
is a lot of cross-checking in the compiler between the declaration of a
thing and its use. The idea is to prevent programmer errors by insuring
However, we find in practice that much of the programmer's effort is
spent in maintaining this cross-checking structure. To use a building
analogy, a statically-typed program is like a truss structure, where
there's a complex web of cross-braces, and a force applied at any given
point is spread out over the whole structure. Each time such a program
is modified, the programmer must partially dismantle and then
re-assemble the existing structure. This takes time.
It also clutters the code. Reading the source code of a program written
in a statically typed language reveals that a substantial part of the
text serves only to support the compile-time checking of definitions, or
provides visual redundancy to aid the programmer in connecting two
aspects of the program which are defined far apart.
An example of what I mean is the use of variable type declarations -
even in a statically typed language, it would be fairly easy for the
compiler to automatically infer most variable types if the language were
designed that way; The fact that the programmer is required to manually
specify these types serves as an additional consistency check on the code.
However, time spend serving the needs of these consistency checks is
time away from actually serving the functional purpose of the code.
Programmers in Python, on the other hand, not only need not worry about
type declarations, they also spend much less time worrying about
converting from one type to another in order to meet the constraints of
a particular API.
This is one of the reasons why I can generally write Python code about 4
times as fast as the C++ equivalent.
(Understand that this is coming from someone who loves working in C++
and Java and has used them daily for the last 15 years. At the same
time, however, I also enjoy programming in Python and I recognize that
each language has their strengths.)
There is also the question of how much static typing helps improve
In statically typed languages, there are two kinds of ways that types
are used. In languages such as C and Pascal, the type declarations serve
primarily as a consistency check. However, in C++ template
metaprogramming, and in languages like Haskell, there is a second use
for types, which is to provide a kind of type calculus or type
inferencing, which gives additional expressive power to the language.
C++ templates can act as powerful code generators, allowing the
programmer to program in ever higher levels of abstraction and express
the basic ideas even more succinctly and clearly than before.
In a rapid-prototyping environment, the second use of types can be a
major productivity win; However I would argue that the first use of
types, consistency checking, is less beneficial, and is often more of a
distraction to the programmer than a help. Yes, static type checking
does detect some errors; But it also causes errors by making the code
larger and more wordy, because that the programmer cannot hold large
portions of the program in their mind all at once, which can lead to
errors in overall design. It means the programmer spends more time
thinking about the behavior of individual variables and less about the
algorithm as a whole.
At this point, I want to talk about a related matter, another
fundamental design aspect of Python which I call "decriminalization of
An example of this is illustrated by the recent discussion over string
slicing. As you know, when you attempt to index a string with a slice
object that extends outside of the bounds of the string, the range is
Some argued that Python should be more strict, and report an error when
this occurs - but instead, it was reaffirmed that the current behavior
is correct. I would agree that this current behavior is the more
Pythonic, and is part of a general pattern, which I shall attempt to
To "decriminalize" an error means to find some alternative
interpretation of the programmer's intent that produces a non-error
result. That is, given a syntactical construct, and a choice of several
interpretations of what that construct should mean, attempt to pick an
interpretation that, when executed, does not produce an error.
In the design of the Python language, it is a regular practice to
decriminalize minor errors, provided that the alternative interpretation
can meet some fairly strict criteria: That it is useful, intuitive,
reasonable, and pedagogically sound.
Note that this is a much more conservative rule than that used by
"heroic efforts" to bend the interpretation of an operation to a
non-error result. Python does not do this.
Nor is decriminalizing errors isn't the same as ignoring errors. Errors
are still, and should be, enforced vigorously and reported. The
distinction is that decriminalizing an error results in code that
produces a useful, logical result, whereas ignoring errors results in
code that produces garbage or nothing. Decriminalization comes about
when we broaden our definitions of what is the correct result of a given
A couple of other examples of decriminalization:
1) there are languages in which the only valid argument for an 'if'
statement is a boolean. Attempts to say "if 0" are errors. In Python we
relax that rule, allowing any type to be used as the argument to an
if-statement. We do this by having a broader interpretation of what it
means to test an object for 'trueness', and allow 'trueness' to be
implied by 'non-emptiness'.
2) Duck-typing is a decriminalization of the error that polymorphic
types are required to inherit from a common interface. It also
decriminalizes "missing methods", as long as those methods are never
called. Again, this is due to having a broader interpretation of
(In fact, this aspect of Python is so fundamental, that I think that it
deserves its own acronym alongside TOOWTDI and others, but I can't think
of a short, pithy description of it. Maybe IOANEIR - "Interpret
operations as non-errors if reasonable.")
Both static typing and decriminalization serve the same end - telling
the programmer "don't sweat the small stuff". Both are very helpful and
powerful, because they allow programmers to spend much less time
worrying about minor error cases, things that would have to be checked
for in C++. Python code is simply more *concise* than the C++
equivalent, yet it achieves this without being terse and cryptic,
because the text of a Python program more closely embodies the "essence"
of an algorithm, uncluttered by other agendas.
The price we pay for this, of course, is that sometimes errors show up
much later (like, after ship) than they would have otherwise. But unit
testing can catch a lot of the same errors.
And in many cases, the seriousness of such errors depends on what we
mean by "ship". It's one thing to discover a fatal error after you've
pressed thousands of CDs and shipped them all over the world; It's a
much different matter if the program has the ability to automatically
update itself, or is downloaded from some kind of subscription model
such as a package manager.
In many environments, it is far more important to get something done
quickly and validate the general concept, than it is to insure that the
code is 100% correct. In other words, if it would take you 6 months to
write it in a statically typed language, but only 2 months to write it
in a dynamic language - well, that's 4 extra months you have to write
unit tests and make sure it's right! And in the mean time, you can have
real users banging on the code and making sure of something that is far
more important, which is whether what you wrote is the right thing at all.