(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 internal consistency. 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 program reliability. 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 minor errors". 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 silently truncated. 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 describe: 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 languages such as Rexx, Javascript, and Perl, languages which make "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 operation. 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 'polymorphism'. (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. -- Talin