[Python-Dev] Is static typing still optional?

[Nick Coghlan]

On 30 December 2017 at 11:48, Ned Batchelder <ned at nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
> On 12/29/17 1:59 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> Regarding whether this should live on PyPI first, in this case that would
>> not be helpful, since attrs is already the category killer on PyPI. So we
>> are IMO taking the best course possible given that we want something in the
>> stdlib but not exactly attrs.
>
>
> It always seemed to me that the reason to recommend putting something on
> PyPI first wasn't so that it would climb up some kind of leaderboard, but so
> that people could get real-world experience with it before freezing it into
> the stdlib.  If we think people won't start using data classes from PyPI,
> why do we think it's important to get into the stdlib?
>
> It still seems to me like there are open questions about how data classes
> should work. Getting people using it will be a good way to get the best
> design before our hands are tied with backward compatibility in the stdlib.
> What is the rush to put a new design into the stdlib?  Presumably it is
> better than attrs (or we would have simply adopted attrs).  Having data
> classes on PyPI will be a good way to gauge acceptance.

attrs has already proved the utility of the approach, and the
differences between the two (such as they are) are mostly cosmetic
(attrs even already has a release out that supports the annotation
based syntax).

The cosmetic differences matter for educational purposes (i.e. "data
classes" with "fields", vs trying to explain that "attributes",
"attrs", "attr.s", and "attr.ib" are all different things), but
"available by default" matters even more on that front.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia