111–120 of 181 posts
Python programmers are crying out for types it seems. It’s a shame the Python foundation haven’t blessed a spec. Better to get everyone working on a single slightly imperfect standard than a morass or differing ideas.
The point is you drop things such as types to enable rapid iteration which enables you to converge to the unknownable business requirements faster.
If you want slow development with types, why not Java?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you add some examples of the things users care about that aren't well covered by this? I empathize with everyone who wants a feature comparison chart so they can be confident switching without unknowingly losing important safety checks.
The conformance test suite is currently mostly focused on “what does an explicit type annotation mean” A shared spec for this is important because if you write a Python library, you don’t want to have to write a different set of types for each Python type checker Here are some things the spec has nothing to say about: Inference You don’t want to annotate every expression in your program. Type checkers have a lot of l…
TypeScript takes the same approach in this scenario, and I assume this helps both be fast.
Not impressed because when tried ruff, and discovered that it doesn't replace (basic) pylint check https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970 so we have ruff then pylint (and looking at the number of awaiting PR of ruff feels bad)
In fact as Jetbrains has been spending years chasing various rabbits including AI, instead of substantially improving or fixing PyCharm, without you steadily replacing/repairing big chunks of Pycharms functionality I would be miserable. If it came down to it, we would happily pay a reasonable license fee to use your tools as long as they stayed free for non-commercial usage.
Python programmers are crying out for types it seems. It’s a shame the Python foundation haven’t blessed a spec. Better to get everyone working on a single slightly imperfect standard than a morass or differing ideas.
Speaking as a Python programmer, no. Using types in a prototyping language is madness. The point is you drop things such as types to enable rapid iteration which enables you to converge to the unknownable business requirements faster. If you want slow development with types, why not Java?
It's not a prototyping language or a scripting language or whatever. It's just a language. And types are useful, especially when you can opt out of type checking when you need to. Most of the time you don't want to be reassigning variables to be different types anyway, even though occasionally an escape hatch is nice.
The title of this story should be "Announcing the Beta release of ty". A lot of people have been waiting for the beta specifically. I've been using Pyrefly and loving it compared to Pyright, but they recently shipped some updates with crash bugs that forced me to pin to a previous version, which is annoying. Unfortunately my first impression of ty isn't great either. Trying to install the ty extension on the current…
Both are rust/open-source/new/fast so it's difficult to understand why I should choose one over the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The conformance test suite is currently mostly focused on “what does an explicit type annotation mean” A shared spec for this is important because if you write a Python library, you don’t want to have to write a different set of types for each Python type checker Here are some things the spec has nothing to say about: Inference You don’t want to annotate every expression in your program. Type checkers have a lot of l…
In case you’re not well versed in Python typecheckers, in the mypy vs Pyright example, Pyright can be configured to complain about not annotating the collection (and so both typecheckers will yell at the code as written). TypeScript takes the same approach in this scenario, and I assume this helps both be fast.
Python programmers are crying out for types it seems. It’s a shame the Python foundation haven’t blessed a spec. Better to get everyone working on a single slightly imperfect standard than a morass or differing ideas.
Speaking as a Python programmer, no. Using types in a prototyping language is madness. The point is you drop things such as types to enable rapid iteration which enables you to converge to the unknownable business requirements faster. If you want slow development with types, why not Java?
Is there any study that shows that typing in Python improves code quality and reduce runtime issues?