syntax difference

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Jim Lee <jlee54 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 06/17/2018 01:56 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Jim Lee <jlee54 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/17/2018 01:35 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko at pacujo.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim Lee <jlee54 at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO, trying to shoehorn static type checking on top of a dynamically
>>>>>> typed language shows that the wrong language was chosen for the job.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also saddened by the type hinting initiative. When you try to be
>>>>> best for everybody, you end up being best for nobody. The niche Python
>>>>> has successfully occupied is huge. Why risk it all by trying to take
>>>>> the
>>>>> whole cake?
>>>>
>>>> Did you complain when function annotations were introduced back in 2006?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/
>>>>
>>>> That's TWELVE YEARS ago. Over in the Node.js world, that's ... uhh,
>>>> actually that's longer ago than Node.js has even been around. Another
>>>> trendy language is Go... oh wait, that wasn't around in 2006 either.
>>>>
>>>> Type annotations have been in Python for nearly twelve years; ten if
>>>> you count the actual release of Python 3.0. The thing that changed
>>>> more recently was that *non-type* annotations were deprecated, since
>>>> very few use-cases were found. When did the shoehorning happen,
>>>> exactly?
>>>>
>>>> ChrisA
>>>
>>> What does time have to do with anything?  I wasn't using Python in 2006.
>>> A
>>> bad idea is a bad idea, regardless of *when* it was conceived.
>>>
>> You talk about "risk it all by trying to take the whole cake" as if
>> annotations are a change. But if they were already around before you
>> first met the language, then they're just part of the language. You
>> might as well argue against the += operator or list comprehensions.
>>
>> ChrisA
>
> You seem to have lost the attribution to those comments in your reply.  I
> wasn't the one who talked about
>
> "risk it all by trying to take the whole cake".
>

My apologies, stuff wrapped and I misread as I skimmed back. You were
the one who used the word "shoehorned". In the same way, that sounds
like you already knew the language, and then someone added extra
features that don't fit. It's not shoehorning if the feature was
already there before you met the language.

The point is the same, the citation incorrect. Mea culpa.

ChrisA