On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 2:13 PM Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > As for the second question, it means that we have to be very careful that the > folks who use type annotation at compile/static checking time (e.g. mypy and > friends) explicitly consider the existing use cases and needs of the runtime > type community. These two constituents have to work together to avoid > backward incompatible changes.
Very well put, thank you Barry. As I see it, the companies who did most of the investment in typing want the benefits static typing (as most of us do), but widespread use of type hints in large codebases created another problem: static checking only happens in developer workstations and CI servers, but *imports* happen all the time in code running in production, on countless servers. That became a real issue for those very same companies operating at Web scale. So they have a strong incentive to focus on the use of annotations for static checking only, while many of us also want type hints to address use cases where Python is used as a *dynamic* language, which is its nature, and likely a strong reason for its popularity in the first place—despite the inherent runtime costs of being a dynamic language. Cheers, Luciano -- Luciano Ramalho | Author of Fluent Python (O'Reilly, 2015) | http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920032519.do | Technical Principal at ThoughtWorks | Twitter: @ramalhoorg _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/DAC3OOMPQ3SOB6CKVEHHJMJHLT6FNICY/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
