Open-sourcing MonkeyType – Let your Python code type-hint itself

Post by oblio » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 1:14 AM UTC

hacker_9 wrote: post #32

maltalex wrote: post #13

Reading this as someone who writes mostly in statically typed languages, the whole exercise seems odd. Having so much dynamically typed code to maintain that you need to run production code using a separate tool just to figure out the types sounds just wrong. Why not use a statically typed language for such a large code-base? Is this done by purpose, or did they end up with a million lines of Python code and are look…

The evolution is fairly simple: python is very easy to setup, especially with django for working on the web, and for writing scripts quickly it work really well when everything is just an 'import' away. Then as the product gets bigger, you'll hire python developers to keep up with the workload - and the best ones will be the ones who have committed their lives to Python. So you'll now end up with more and more python…

Post by toast0 » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 1:56 AM UTC

IshKebab wrote: post #69

nawgszy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is this done by purpose, or did they end up with a million lines of Python code and are looking for ways to make the maintenance easier? Definitely the latter. I've seen this discussion a few times before, and it's always the same. Your initial developers are not looking down the road to the million lines of code milestone, they're just trying to make a product that might actually make some money here and now. I'm s…

Navigating a large code base that is dynamically typed like Python is far more tedious than something like C++ or C#. First you can't read what the types passed into and out of functions are. You have to find their usages to work it out. Second, you can't reliable do things like "find usages" or "go to definition" because of the dynamic typing.

Post by forgotpassagan » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 2:01 AM UTC

btown wrote: post #104

forgotpassagan wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can picture these poor souls vividly. Millions of lines of python, flowing like the mightiest of rivers. Nobody really knowing whence it cometh and goeth. A hero arises, offering a sacred herb to calm the torrent and light the golden path. The hero is elevated, yet they continue to pray

They say there is a holy land called Haskell, but it is only revealed to the truest of believers without the weight of the chaotic-neutral entity “Shareholder” weighing ever so heavily on their shoulders. For those in Shareholder’s clutches, one must forgive their prayer. ‘Tis the best they can do.

Post by aub3bhat » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 2:38 AM UTC

Cieplak wrote: post #41

Given that people have asked why not use a statically typed language, seems appropriate to mention that it's possible to write pythonic-looking C++: http://preshing.com/20141202/cpp-has-become-more-pythonic/ I have been using C++ a lot lately but really wish there were more tools for reflection at compile time, e.g., ability to iterate over all the members of a class. Other than that, I'm really loving C++17's auto t…

    sorted([(k.weight, k.name) for k in somelist], reverse=True)

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 2:52 AM UTC

tjoff wrote: post #92

depressedpanda wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I the analogy just wasn't very apt. Python allowed them to build a successful company. Now, when their stack is mature and maintenance is more important than rapid prototyping, Python allows them to add type hinting. Because they are engineers, they built a tool (in Python) that allows them to do it in an automated manner. And all of this is great! They are evolving their code to fit their needs; it's nothing lik…

The point is that there is no property of python that allowed them to build a successful company that any statically typed language don't have. It is a completely unnecessary detour. The cost of doing it right from the start is negligible.