Mario Figueiredo wrote: > In article <mailman.18229.1422469034.18130.python-l...@python.org>, > breamore...@yahoo.co.uk says... >> >> C and C++ are weakly and statically typed languages. Python is a >> strongly and dynamically typed language. Therefore anything following >> based on the above paragraph alone is wrong. >> > > Indeed. I confused strongly/weakly with static. I feel a a bit > embarrased by it. My apologies. > > But no. Nothing that follows from that paragraph is wrong, just because > of that mistake. > > It still stands that list was artifically created to make it look like > type annotations on top of executable code is a feature of nearly every > language in the book. When it is not! > > Most particularly when it comes to statically typed languages, wich > Steven didn't feel guilty of including there.
Why should I feel guilty? You wrote: "Static analysis cannot and should not clutter executable code." But what are type declarations in statically typed languages like C, Pascal, Haskell, etc.? They are used by the compiler for static analysis. The same applies to type declarations in dynamically typed languages like Cobra and Julia. And yet, there they are, in the executable code. So there are a whole lot of languages, going all the way back to 1950s languages like Fortran, to some of the newest languages which are only a few years old like Go, both dynamically typed and statically typed, which do exactly what you say languages "cannot and should not" do: they put type information used for static analysis there in the code. As I said, these languages disagree with you. You are not just arguing against Guido, but against the majority of programming language designers for 60+ years. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
