On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 at 19:36, Christopher Barker
wrote:
> I’m sorry that my typing-skepticism came across too strong, but while the
> tone and language revealed my personal view, I still think the points were
> correct.
>
> Paul: I didn’t say annotations were experimental. I said “static typing”
I’m sorry that my typing-skepticism came across too strong, but while the
tone and language revealed my personal view, I still think the points were
correct.
Paul: I didn’t say annotations were experimental. I said “static typing” is
— and I really think it still is, though “immature” is a better
On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 at 01:41, Christopher Barker
wrote:
> Static type analysis is still experimental in Python.
>
It's not. This is simply false. Type *annotations* are a standard part of
the language, supported by language syntax, a standard library module, and
a series of PEPs describing
Christopher Barker writes:
> Also: Static type checking is optional in Python. There are those of us
> that are not convinced that static type checking is or should be a Python
> best practice.
Why would you be? Nobody (sane senior core) is advocating annotations
as a Python-wide best
I happen to give a talk just yesterday that was about pretty much this (
https://github.com/DavidMertz/PythonRuntimeTyping; hopefully PyCon MEA
publishes video after a bit).
I illustrate checking the same program using mypy, pytype, and pyright.
There is a lot of overlap in what they flag as
Static type analysis is still experimental in Python.
Evidence for this is that there ARE multiple type checkers, and they don’t
all behave the same way.
It really needs to settle down before there is a single “official” type
checker.
Also: Static type checking is optional in Python. There are
