I’m sorry that my typing-skepticism came across too strong, but while the tone and language revealed my personal view, I still think the points were correct. 

Paul: I didn’t say annotations were experimental. I said “static typing” is — and I really think it still is, though “immature” is a better word.

Better evidence than the multiple implementations is the still unsettled state of PEP 563 and the number of typing-related PEPs introduced in the last few Python releases. 

My point stands: Static type analysis tools are not stable enough at this point to choose an “official” one. 

But Paul’s point is better- This kind of development tool doesn’t belong in the stdlib at all — the features that are needed to support static type checkers do, which is why they have been added (and still are), but not the tool(s) itself.

And I’m confused about your point about my directing my typing rants at the Core devs— this is Python ideas, not Python-dev, and a community member suggested that Static Type analysis be standardized— how was my response not directed at the community ?

And your example of PEP 8 is an excellent one: PEP 8 is a style guide for the standard library itself. But that gives it a perceived endorsement as an all-Python standard — I’m suggesting that we wouldn’t want to accidentally provide a similar perceived endorsement of a particular static type checker. 

-CHB