Are you expected to run five Python type-checkers now?
1–10 of 220 posts
Re: Are you expected to run five Python type-checkers now?
#2With agents it no longer makes sense to tie yourself to Python's archaic
development experience. How many type checkers are there? Package managers? Don't even get me started on cross-platform deployment.
Strongly typed, compiled languages have never been easier to use, and agents reap huge benefits from the tight feedback loop that the compiler provides. Moreover the benefits of the Python ecosystem are less significant today than anytime in the past 20 years. Need something that's only available in Python? Just point some agents at it and you can port it.
Re: Are you expected to run five Python type-checkers now?
#3> "In Python, any method __eq__ is expected to return bool, and if it doesn't, then we need to explicitly tell type-checkers to ignore the type error. This function in Polars can also return different types depending on the inputs, thus requiring overloads."
Why would you ever want a == b to not return a bool??
EDIT: Yes, I understand that you can do element-wise equality checks on numpy arrays now
Re: Are you expected to run five Python type-checkers now?
#4With agents it no longer makes sense to tie yourself to Python's archaic development experience. How many type checkers are there? Package managers? Don't even get me started on cross-platform deployment. Strongly typed, compiled languages have never been easier to use, and agents reap huge benefits from the tight feedback loop that the compiler provides. Moreover the benefits of the Python ecosystem are less signifi…
What about the several people worldwide who don't want to use LLMs to program?
Re: Are you expected to run five Python type-checkers now?
#5> "In Python, any method __eq__ is expected to return bool, and if it doesn't, then we need to explicitly tell type-checkers to ignore the type error. This function in Polars can also return different types depending on the inputs, thus requiring overloads." Why would you ever want a == b to not return a bool?? EDIT: Yes, I understand that you can do element-wise equality checks on numpy arrays now
One example is if an and b are arrays (e.g. numpy arrays) it’s not unreasonable for dunder eq to return an array of booleans.
Another example might be if you have a domain specific representation of equality (e.g. class Equality)
Re: Are you expected to run five Python type-checkers now?
#6> "In Python, any method __eq__ is expected to return bool, and if it doesn't, then we need to explicitly tell type-checkers to ignore the type error. This function in Polars can also return different types depending on the inputs, thus requiring overloads." Why would you ever want a == b to not return a bool?? EDIT: Yes, I understand that you can do element-wise equality checks on numpy arrays now
I thought JavaScript language equality quirks was seen as problematic not a missing feature in Python.
Re: Are you expected to run five Python type-checkers now?
#7> "In Python, any method __eq__ is expected to return bool, and if it doesn't, then we need to explicitly tell type-checkers to ignore the type error. This function in Polars can also return different types depending on the inputs, thus requiring overloads." Why would you ever want a == b to not return a bool?? EDIT: Yes, I understand that you can do element-wise equality checks on numpy arrays now
One example is if an and b are arrays (e.g. numpy arrays) it’s not unreasonable for dunder eq to return an array of booleans. Another example might be if you have a domain specific representation of equality (e.g. class Equality)
I can see the first one making sense, but why would you need a representation of equality other than "yes, these are equal" and "no, these are not equal"?
Re: Are you expected to run five Python type-checkers now?
#8With agents it no longer makes sense to tie yourself to Python's archaic development experience. How many type checkers are there? Package managers? Don't even get me started on cross-platform deployment. Strongly typed, compiled languages have never been easier to use, and agents reap huge benefits from the tight feedback loop that the compiler provides. Moreover the benefits of the Python ecosystem are less signifi…
> Just point some agents at it and you can port it.
Don’t think we’re there yet, otherwise we would see a bunch of forks of major libraries to alternative languages - and not just Python. There’s still too much risk of insidious errors and bugs.
Re: Are you expected to run five Python type-checkers now?
#9> "In Python, any method __eq__ is expected to return bool, and if it doesn't, then we need to explicitly tell type-checkers to ignore the type error. This function in Polars can also return different types depending on the inputs, thus requiring overloads." Why would you ever want a == b to not return a bool?? EDIT: Yes, I understand that you can do element-wise equality checks on numpy arrays now
I thought JavaScript language equality quirks was seen as problematic not a missing feature in Python.
At least in javascript, it tells you if things are equal or not. In python, apparently you could answer if A is equal to B with "beans" or 17 or ['a']
Re: Are you expected to run five Python type-checkers now?
#10> "In Python, any method __eq__ is expected to return bool, and if it doesn't, then we need to explicitly tell type-checkers to ignore the type error. This function in Polars can also return different types depending on the inputs, thus requiring overloads." Why would you ever want a == b to not return a bool?? EDIT: Yes, I understand that you can do element-wise equality checks on numpy arrays now
Elementwise equality! Given two dataframe columns or ndarrays, users often expect `==` to give out a column or ndarrays of bools (like `+`, ``, `*, `&`, and just about every other binary operator).