optional types

Mark Lawrence breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Oct 29 20:22:46 CET 2014


On 29/10/2014 19:03, Kiuhnm wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:19:11 PM UTC+1, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Yes, but if it's official, the standard library (large parts of it, at
>>> least) will use it, which will make it a lot more useful than it
>>> currently is.
>>
>> I doubt it. Python should decide if it wants to stay Python or become
>> another Java. I don't really believe in this "be everything for
>> everybody" thing. You'll only become nothing for anybody.
>>
>>
>> Marko
>
> 1) Java is not optionally typed.
> 2) Having optional types is not "being everything for everybody", it's just being smart.
>

Regarding 2) Python has somehow managed without optional types for over 
20 years so it's my belief that they're not the panacea that so many 
people think they are.  Sure if they get implemented and if they improve 
Python then I'm all for them, but I'm not holding my breath.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence




More information about the Python-list mailing list