Although I like the concept of type annotations and the PEP, I have to agree with this. If I saw these type annotations when learning Python (I'm self-taught), there's a 99% chance I would've freaked.
It's the same issue as with teaching C++: it's wrong to say, "Hey, I taught you the basics, but there's other stuff that's going to confuse you to a ridiculous extent when you read it." People can't ignore it. It'll become a normal part of Python programs. At least now you can say, "I'm using the mypy type checker." Don't get me wrong; I like mypy. I helped with their documentation and am watching the GitHub repo. But this is dead-on. On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Jack Diederich <jackd...@gmail.com> wrote: > Twelve years ago a wise man said to me "I suggest that you also propose a > new name for the resulting language" > > I talked with many of you at PyCon about the costs of PEP 484. There are > plenty of people who have done a fine job promoting the benefits. > > * It is not optional. Please stop saying that. The people promoting it > would prefer that everyone use it. If it is approved it will be optional in > the way that PEP8 is optional. If I'm reading your annotated code it is > certainly /not/ optional that I understand the annotations. > > * Uploading stubs for other people's code is a terrible idea. Who do I > contact when I update the interface to my library? The random Joe who > "helped" by uploading annotations three months ago and then quit the > internet? I don't even want to think about people maliciously adding stubs > to PyPI. > > * The cognitive load is very high. The average function signature will > double in length. This is not a small cost and telling me it is "optional" > to pretend that every other word on the line doesn't exist is a farce. > > * Every company's style guide is about to get much longer. That in itself > is an indicator that this is a MAJOR language change and not just some > "optional" add-on. > > * People will screw it up. The same people who can't be trusted to program > without type annotations are also going to be *writing* those type > annotations. > > * Teaching python is about to get much less attractive. It will not be > optional for teachers to say "just pretend all this stuff over here doesn't > exist" > > * "No new syntax" is a lie. Or rather a red herring. There are lots of new > things it will be required to know and just because the compiler doesn't > have to change doesn't mean the language isn't undergoing a major change. > > If this wasn't in a PEP and it wasn't going to ship in the stdlib very few > people would use it. If you told everyone they had to install a different > python implementation they wouldn't. This is much worse than that - it is > Python4 hidden away inside a PEP. > > There are many fine languages that have sophisticated type systems. And > many bondage & discipline languages that make you type things three times > to make really really sure you meant to type that. If you find those other > languages appealing I invite you to go use them instead. > > -Jack > > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-February/033291.html > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/rymg19%40gmail.com > > -- Ryan [ERROR]: Your autotools build scripts are 200 lines longer than your program. Something’s wrong. http://kirbyfan64.github.io/
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
