PEP 3107 and stronger typing (note: probably a newbie question)
bruno.42.desthuilliers at wtf.websiteburo.oops.com
Wed Jun 27 16:03:39 CEST 2007
Stephen R Laniel a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:44:17PM +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>> Indeed - static typing is for compilers, not for programmers.
> When done well, static typing helps the programmer
The closer thing to "well done static typing" I know is type inference
(à la O'Caml). And I don't find it that helpfull to the programmer -
here again, it's mainly to allow compile-time optimizations.
> The example toward the end of how ML actually spots an
> infinite loop at compile time seems to me to be "for
> programmers" rather than "for compilers."
It's been a long time since I last got into such a problem. Which BTW
was very quickly spotted and fixed. Compared to what I would loose, I
don't think this kind of "help" is so useful.
Stephen, you may not know yet, but Python is *dynamic*. This defeats
almost all compile-time checking. Of what help would type inference be
when you can dynamically add/remove/replace attributes (including
methods and class) at runtime ?
More information about the Python-list