On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:17:33 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Jim Lee <jle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 06/17/2018 01:56 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Jim Lee <jle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 06/17/2018 01:35 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Jim Lee <jle...@gmail.com>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IMHO, trying to shoehorn static type checking on top of a dynamically > >>>>>> typed language shows that the wrong language was chosen for the job. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm also saddened by the type hinting initiative. When you try to be > >>>>> best for everybody, you end up being best for nobody. The niche Python > >>>>> has successfully occupied is huge. Why risk it all by trying to take > >>>>> the > >>>>> whole cake? > >>>> > >>>> Did you complain when function annotations were introduced back in 2006? > >>>> > >>>> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/ > >>>> > >>>> That's TWELVE YEARS ago. Over in the Node.js world, that's ... uhh, > >>>> actually that's longer ago than Node.js has even been around. Another > >>>> trendy language is Go... oh wait, that wasn't around in 2006 either. > >>>> > >>>> Type annotations have been in Python for nearly twelve years; ten if > >>>> you count the actual release of Python 3.0. The thing that changed > >>>> more recently was that *non-type* annotations were deprecated, since > >>>> very few use-cases were found. When did the shoehorning happen, > >>>> exactly? > >>>> > >>>> ChrisA > >>> > >>> What does time have to do with anything? I wasn't using Python in 2006. > >>> A > >>> bad idea is a bad idea, regardless of *when* it was conceived. > >>> > >> You talk about "risk it all by trying to take the whole cake" as if > >> annotations are a change. But if they were already around before you > >> first met the language, then they're just part of the language. You > >> might as well argue against the += operator or list comprehensions. > >> > >> ChrisA > > > > You seem to have lost the attribution to those comments in your reply. I > > wasn't the one who talked about > > > > "risk it all by trying to take the whole cake". > > > > My apologies, stuff wrapped and I misread as I skimmed back. You were > the one who used the word "shoehorned". In the same way, that sounds > like you already knew the language, and then someone added extra > features that don't fit. It's not shoehorning if the feature was > already there before you met the language.
Red herring! -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
