optional types

Kiuhnm gandalf23 at mail.com
Wed Oct 29 21:40:22 CET 2014


On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:23:30 PM UTC+1, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> 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.

The only thing I know is that I programmed in ASM and C++ for many years and I liked it. Then I moved to C#, Haskell, Scala, and many other languages. Then I learned Python and I liked it. Then I tried Dart (with optional static typing) and liked it very much. Finally, I've come back to Python and I don't like it anymore like I used to. Dart's syntax is not on par with Python's but its type system is so lightweight and non intrusive that it's a joy to work with it and I miss it.



More information about the Python-list mailing list