Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Python developers are embracing type hints

pyrefly.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 581 posts

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#161

Post by lelanthran »

flohofwoe wrote: post #130
seanparsons wrote: post #110

As a static typing advocate I do find it funny how all the popular dynamic languages have slowly become statically typed. After decades of people saying it's not at all necessary and being so critical of statically typed languages. When I was working on a fairly large TypeScript project it became the norm for dependencies to have type definitions in a relatively short space of time.

OTH I only came to realize that I actually like duck typing in some situations when I tried to add type hints to one of my Python projects (and then removed them again because the actually important types consisted almost entirely of sum types, and what's the point of static typing if anything is a variant anyway). E.g. when Python is used as a 'scripting language' instead of a 'programming language' (like for writin…

> Because tbh, even with type hints Python is a lousy programming language (but a fine scripting language).

I'd be interested in seeing you expand on this, explaining the ways you feel Python doesn't make the cut for programming language while doing so for scripting.

The reason I say this is because, intuitively, I've felt this way for quite some time but I am unable to properly articulate why, other than "I don't want all my type errors to show up at runtime only!"

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#162

Post by Galanwe »

entropyneur wrote: post #153

I know I am going to be in the minority, but I don't understand why we can't let Python be Python. Static typing is great, and there are already other statically typed languages for all your needs. Why not use them? Well, at least it doesn't create two incompatible Pythons like async and (I assume) free threading.

I used to be of the same opinion, but after giving type hints a real try, I changed my mind.

You should not see type hints as real, hard types, but more as a kind of documentation that helps your linter and type checker catch mistakes.

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#163

Post by IshKebab »

throwaway81523 wrote: post #27
lrobinovitch wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly drove you nuts? The python ecosystem is very broad and useful, so it might be suitable for the application (if not, reasonable that you'd be frustrated). With strict mypy/pyright settings and an internal type-everything culture, Python feels statically typed IME.

I would say mypy is better than nothing but it still misses things sometimes, and makes some signatures difficult or impossible to write. I use it anyway, but patched-on static typing (Erlang, Clojure, and Racket also have it) seems like a compromise from the get-go. I'd rather have the type system designed into the language.

Mypy is trash but Pyright is very good.

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#165

Post by pansa2 »

Hamuko wrote: post #148
pansa2 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all the popular dynamic languages have slowly become statically typed I’ve heard this before, but it’s not really true. Yes, maybe the majority of JavaScript code is now statically-typed, via Typescript. Some percentage of Python code is (I don’t know the numbers). But that’s about it. Very few people are using static typing in Ruby, Lua, Clojure, Julia, etc.

I have my doubts about majority of JavaScript being TypeScript.

You’re probably right. RedMonk [0] shows JavaScript and TypeScript separately and has the former well above the latter.

[0] https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2025/06/18/language-rankings-1-2...

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#166

Post by ninetyninenine »

JimDabell wrote: post #121
ninetyninenine wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Type annotations don’t double productivity. What does “increase safety by 2×” even mean? What metric are you tracking there? My own anecdotal metric. Isn't that obvious? The initial post was an anecdotal opinion as well. I don't see a problem here. >In my experience, the main non-documentation benefit of type annotations is warning where the code is assuming a value where None might be present. Mixing up any other k…

> My own anecdotal metric. Isn't that obvious? The initial post was an anecdotal opinion as well. I don't see a problem here. WTF is “an anecdotal metric”‽ That just sounds like an evasive way to say “I want to make up numbers I can’t justify” . > wtf is direction object? Is it in Cartesian or is it in polar? Is in 2D or 3D? This seems very domain-specific. > Most people who complain like you literally have mostly co…

>WTF is “an anecdotal metric”‽ That just sounds like an evasive way to say “I want to make up numbers I can’t justify”.

What I have to have scientific papers for every fucking opinion I have? The initial Parent post was an anecdotal opinion. Your post is an opinion. I can't have opinions here without citing a scientific paper that's 20 pages long and no is going to read but just blindly trust because it's "science"? Come on. What I'm saying is self evident to people who know. There are thousands of things like this in the world where people just know even though statistical proof hasn't been measured or established. For example eating horse shit everyday probably isn't healthy even though it there isn't SCIENCE that proves this action as unhealthy directly. Type checking is just one of those things.

OBVIOUSLY I think development is overall much better, much faster and much safer with types. I can't prove it with metrics, but I'm confident my "anecdotal" metrics with I prefaced with "roughly" are "roughly" ballpark trueish.

>This seems very domain-specific.

Domain specific? Basic orientation with quaternions and euler angles is specific to reality. Orientation and rotations exist in reality and there are thousands and thousands of domains that use it.

Also the example itself is generic. Replace euler angles and quats with vectors and polar coordinates. Or cats and dogs. Same shit.

>I’ve got many years of experience with static typed languages over a 25 year career. Just because somebody disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean they are a clueless junior.

The amount of years of experience is irrelevant. I know tons of developers with only 5 years of experience who are better than me and tons of developers with 25+ who are horrible.

I got 25 years as well. If someone disagrees with me (on this specific topic), it absolutely doesn't mean they are a junior. It means they lack knowledge and experience. This is a fact. It's not an insult. It just means for a specific thing they don't have experience or knowledge which is typical. I'm sure there's tons of things where you could have more experience. Just not this topic.

If you have experience with static languages it likely isn't that extensive. You're likely more of a old school python guy who spend a ton of time programming without types.

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#167

Post by IshKebab »

jmward01 wrote: post #53

Type hints in python are just that, hints. Use them to help with clarity but enforcing them and requiring them everywhere generally leads to the worst of all worlds. Lots of boilerplate, less readable code and throwing away many of the features that make python powerful. Use the best language for the job and use the right language features at the right time. I see too many black or white arguments in the developer co…

> Use the best language for the job

Sometimes you don't have a choice though, and other people have picked Python despite it rarely being the best language for any job.

In that case it's nice to be able to use static type hints and benefit from improved readability, productivity and reliability.

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#168

Post by lelanthran »

simonw wrote: post #25

The thing that finally got me on board with optional type hints in Python was realizing that they're mainly valuable as documentation. But it's really valuable documentation! Knowing what types are expected and returned just by looking at a function signature is super useful.

> The thing that finally got me on board with optional type hints in Python was realizing that they're mainly valuable as documentation.

> But it's really valuable documentation! Knowing what types are expected and returned just by looking at a function signature is super useful.

So ... you didn't have this realisation prior to using Python type hints? Not from any other language you used prior to Python?

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#170

Post by pansa2 »

Kwpolska wrote: post #141
pansa2 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all the popular dynamic languages have slowly become statically typed I’ve heard this before, but it’s not really true. Yes, maybe the majority of JavaScript code is now statically-typed, via Typescript. Some percentage of Python code is (I don’t know the numbers). But that’s about it. Very few people are using static typing in Ruby, Lua, Clojure, Julia, etc.

How many people are using Ruby, Lua, Clojure, Julia, etc.?

Fair enough, apart from Ruby they’re all pretty niche.

OTOH I’m not arguing that most code should be dynamically-typed. Far from it. But I do think dynamic typing has its place and shouldn’t be rejected entirely.

Also, I would have preferred it if Python had concentrated on being the best language in that space, rather than trying to become a jack-of-all-trades.

Post reply on HN