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

371–380 of 581 posts

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#371

Post by throwaway106382 »

sota_pop wrote: post #317

Python types - all the onus of static types, with none of the performance! I enjoy packages like pydantic and SOME simple static typing, but if I’m implementing anything truly OOP, I wouldn’t first reach for Python anyway; the language doesn’t even do multiple constructors or public/private props. Edit: as a side note, I was interested to learn that for more verbose type specification, it’s possible to define a type…

Ruby doesn't have multiple constructors and literally everything in Ruby is an object so it's partically impossible to avoid "doing OOP". I don't see how being "truely OOP" has anything to do with the language supporting method overloads.

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#372

Post by franktankbank »

olokobayusuf wrote: post #370
franktankbank wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you talked to anyone about where this flat out will not work? Obviously it will work in simple cases but someone with good language understanding will probably be able to point out cases where it just won't. I didn't read your blog so apologies if this is covered. How does this compiler fit into your company business plan?

Our primary use case is cross-platform AI inference (unsurprising), and for that use case we're already in production by startups to larger co's. It's kind of funny: our compiler currently doesn't support classes, but we support many kinds of AI models (vision, text generation, TTS). This is mainly because math, tensor, and AI libraries are almost always written with a functional paradigm. Business plan is simple: we…

I understood some of it. Sounds reasonable if your market already is running a limited subset of the language, but I guess there is a lot of custom bullshit you actually wind up maintaining.

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#373

Post by anankaie »

bgwalter wrote: post #318
TZubiri wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the type is anything that implements the index function ([], or __getitem__), I thnink that's a Sequence, similar to Iterable. >from typing import Sequence >def third(something: Sequence): > return indexable[3] however if all you are doing is just iterate over the thing, what you actually need is an Iterable >from typing import Iterable >def average(something:Iterable): > for thing in something: > ... Statisticall…

That is sort of ironic because the Pythonistas did not leave out any opportunity to criticize Java. Java was developed by world class experts like Gosling and attracted other type experts like Philip Wadler. No world class expert is going to contribute to Python after 2020 anyway, since the slanderous and libelous behavior of the Steering Council and the selective curation of allowed information on PSF infrastructure…

> Google and Microsoft have already shut down several failed projects

Could you elaborate on this?

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#374

Post by throwaway106382 »

tedivm wrote: post #369
throwaway106382 wrote: post #367

Ruby has had static typing via RBS for a while now, and I don't know if it's because I'm primarily a Rails developer and DHH doesn't like static typing so using these with Rails feels third-class or maybe just that I'm really just all the way in "the ruby way" but it feels antithetical to a dynamically typed language to start shoehorning in static types. Even as a type definition in a separate file it just feels wron…

I've been working with Python for years (since 2014) and typing makes the code less buggy and easier to maintain. I also would hardly call it "shoehorning", as years of design went into it. Honestly the only people I see who really push back against it are the people who haven't bothered learning it. Once people use it for a bit, in my experience at least, they don't want to go back.

Maybe it's just because Python is just kindof a lousy language to use in the first place. I started with Java and C++, did Python for a bit and switched to Ruby and never looked back. Being forced to use Python for anything feels like a punishment.

Years of design also went into Ruby's type system, and for the people that enjoy it - be my guest - but I would never use it for my own code.

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#375

Post by oivey »

Dr_Birdbrain wrote: post #215

I actually don’t like python type hints! At my work we have a jit compiler that requires type hints under some conditions. Aside from that, I avoid them as much as possible. The reason is that they are not really a part of the language, they violate the spirit of the language, and in high-usage parts of code they quickly become a complete mess. For example a common failure mode in my work’s codebase is that some func…

I feel pretty similarly on this. Python’s bolted on type system is very poor at encoding safe invariants common in the language. It’s a straight jacketed, Java-style OOP type system that’s a poor fit for many common Python patterns.

I would love it if it were better designed. It’s a real downer that you can’t check lots of Pythonic, concise code using it.

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#376

Post by humdaanm »

Dr_Birdbrain wrote: post #215

I actually don’t like python type hints! At my work we have a jit compiler that requires type hints under some conditions. Aside from that, I avoid them as much as possible. The reason is that they are not really a part of the language, they violate the spirit of the language, and in high-usage parts of code they quickly become a complete mess. For example a common failure mode in my work’s codebase is that some func…

the issue of having multiple inputs able to be indexable by ints, is exactly why i prefer that type hints remain exactly as "hints" and not as mandated checks. my philosophy for type hints is that they are meant to make codebases easier to understand without getting into a debugger. their functional equivalence should be that of comments. it's a cleaner more concise way of describing a variable instead of using a full on docstring.

though maybe there's a path forward to give a variable a sort of "de-hint" in that in can be everything BUT this type(i.e. an argument can be any indexable type, except a string)

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#377

Post by MangoToupe »

watwut wrote: post #115
MangoToupe wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Static type checking (which is what I assume you mean by "typing") can also be a massive pain in the ass that stands in the way of incremental development, even if the end-goal is to ship an api with clear type signatures. There are developers who design apis by trying to figure out readable invocations. These developers discover, rather than design, type hierarchies and library interfaces. > Many old school python d…

> Static type checking (which is what I assume you mean by "typing") can also be a massive pain in the ass that stands in the way of incremental development, No they dont. There is nothing about types that would make incremental develpment harder. They keep having the same benefits when being incremental.

> There is nothing about types that would make incremental develpment harder.

Oh, please, this is either lack of imagination or lack of effort to think. You've never wanted to test a subset of a library halfway through a refactor?

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#378

Post by olokobayusuf »

franktankbank wrote: post #372
olokobayusuf wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our primary use case is cross-platform AI inference (unsurprising), and for that use case we're already in production by startups to larger co's. It's kind of funny: our compiler currently doesn't support classes, but we support many kinds of AI models (vision, text generation, TTS). This is mainly because math, tensor, and AI libraries are almost always written with a functional paradigm. Business plan is simple: we…

I understood some of it. Sounds reasonable if your market already is running a limited subset of the language, but I guess there is a lot of custom bullshit you actually wind up maintaining.

Yup that's true. We do benefit from massive efficiencies though, thanks to LLM codegen.

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#379

Post by bgwalter »

anankaie wrote: post #373
bgwalter wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is sort of ironic because the Pythonistas did not leave out any opportunity to criticize Java. Java was developed by world class experts like Gosling and attracted other type experts like Philip Wadler. No world class expert is going to contribute to Python after 2020 anyway, since the slanderous and libelous behavior of the Steering Council and the selective curation of allowed information on PSF infrastructure…

> Google and Microsoft have already shut down several failed projects Could you elaborate on this?

Sure: Google fired the Python language team in 2024 that contained a couple of the worst politicians who were later involved in slandering Tim Peters.

Before that, Google moved heavily from Python to Go.

Microsoft fired the "Faster CPython Team" this year.

Re: Python developers are embracing type hints

#380

Post by lucasyvas »

Dr_Birdbrain wrote: post #215

I actually don’t like python type hints! At my work we have a jit compiler that requires type hints under some conditions. Aside from that, I avoid them as much as possible. The reason is that they are not really a part of the language, they violate the spirit of the language, and in high-usage parts of code they quickly become a complete mess. For example a common failure mode in my work’s codebase is that some func…

This is like saying you don’t like nails because you don’t understand how to use a hammer though. Developers are not understanding how to use the hints properly which is causing you a personal headache. The hints aren’t bad, the programmers are untrained - the acknowledgement of this is the first step into a saner world.
Post reply on HN