Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

W dniu 13.10.2015 o 03:35, Michael Torrie pisze: > On 10/12/2015 06:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> > Where is the "vast amounts of noise" added to the code? > Well in Java code for one. No wonder they require auto-completion. > Java class-based namespaces must be a nightmare to work with.

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

In a message of Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:35:57 -0600, Michael Torrie writes: >On 10/12/2015 06:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> Where is the "vast amounts of noise" added to the code? > >Well in Java code for one. No wonder they require auto-completion. >Java class-based namespaces must be a nightmare

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On Oct 13, 2015 2:11 AM, "Steven D'Aprano" wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:20 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > > > As for managing complexity, many people believe static typing is a > > crucial tool. I disagree. Static typing adds vast amounts of noise to > > the code. > > Only

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

Laura Creighton : > When Design Patterns were new, the 2 of the first books to come out > were 'Design Patterns'[1995] which was C++ focused, and the 'Design > Patterns Smalltalk Companion'[1998]. If you read the two of them, side > by side (as DPSTC asks you to) you will be

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:55 pm, Todd wrote: > On Oct 13, 2015 2:11 AM, "Steven D'Aprano" wrote: >> Consider the following piece of code: >> >> def addone(x): >> return x + 1 >> >> >> The human programmer reading that can trivially infer that x must be a >> number (or at

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

In a message of Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:31:56 +0100, Bartc writes: >On 13/10/2015 11:42, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > >> A few years back I programmed in Java. I literally had to write (or >> generate) 2,000 lines of code to satisfy the structural requirements >> (interfaces, method stubs, javadocs, ...)

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 13/10/2015 11:42, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: A few years back I programmed in Java. I literally had to write (or generate) 2,000 lines of code to satisfy the structural requirements (interfaces, method stubs, javadocs, ...) before the code actually did anything. And this is the recommended

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

Am 13.10.2015 um 00:10 schrieb Ben Finney: Sibylle Koczian writes: Am 12.10.2015 um 13:39 schrieb Steven D'Aprano: Auto-complete is a fine and useful tool. But if you are crippled as a programmer without it, well, then you can hardly claim to understand the language or

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 9:40:56 AM UTC-4, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:55 pm, Todd wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2015 2:11 AM, "Steven D'Aprano" <...> wrote: > > >> Consider the following piece of code: > >> > >> def addone(x): > >> return x + 1 > >> > >> > >> The human

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

m wrote: W dniu 13.10.2015 o 03:35, Michael Torrie pisze: Well in Java code for one. No wonder they require auto-completion. Java class-based namespaces must be a nightmare to work with. IMHO mainly because their naming convention. They just love typing long names. The biggest verbosity

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

Bartc wrote: I've surprised Basic needs it. The last time I looked, $A was a string, %B an integer, and C a number. A$ and B%, actually. Although if you didn't like the type suffixes, you could say DEFINT I-N and pretend you were writing Fortran code. :-) -- Greg --

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

Ben Finney wrote: * The overwhelming majority of .NET and Java programmers would feel crippled without auto-complete. (assertion made by Sibylle) An obvious resolution is to conclude that the overwhelming majority of Java and .NET programmers cannot claim to understand those technologies.

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-4, Sibylle Koczian wrote: > Am 13.10.2015 um 00:10 schrieb Ben Finney: > > Sibylle Koczian <> writes: > > > >> Am 12.10.2015 um 13:39 schrieb Steven D'Aprano: > >>> Auto-complete is a fine and useful tool. But if you are crippled as a > >>> programmer

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

Now that Python has static type checking and support for IDE auto-complete (PEP 484?), I beg you to please use it. In your standard library, in your production code, in everywhere. I cannot type without auto-complete. I know that sounds ridiculous, but I have been coding on a daily basis for the

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

No. Python now has static type checking and IDE auto-complete support. All you have to do is put the type name in the function declaration. On Oct 11, 2015 3:45 PM, "Matt Wheeler" wrote: > On 9 October 2015 at 17:26, John Michael Lafayette >

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

John Michael Lafayette : > Now that Python has static type checking and support for IDE > auto-complete (PEP 484?), I beg you to please use it. In your standard > library, in your production code, in everywhere. I cannot type without > auto-complete. > > I know that

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 10/12/2015 07:30 AM, Bartc wrote: > On 12/10/2015 03:45, Michael Torrie wrote: >> On 10/11/2015 06:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> That's called type inference, and there's nothing innovative about Swift to >>> include that as a feature. Type inference is *old*. The theory behind type >>>

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:47 AM, John Michael Lafayette wrote: > Now that Python has static type checking and support for IDE auto-complete > (PEP 484?), I beg you to please use it. In your standard library, in your > production code, in everywhere. I cannot type

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

Il giorno lunedì 12 ottobre 2015 10:51:50 UTC+2, John Michael Lafayette ha scritto: > Now that Python has static type checking and support for IDE auto-complete > (PEP 484?), I beg you to please use it. In your standard library, in your > production code, in everywhere. I cannot type without

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 10/12/2015 02:47 AM, John Michael Lafayette wrote: > Now that Python has static type checking and support for IDE auto-complete > (PEP 484?), I beg you to please use it. In your standard library, in your > production code, in everywhere. I cannot type without auto-complete. > > I know that

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 12/10/2015 03:45, Michael Torrie wrote: On 10/11/2015 06:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: That's called type inference, and there's nothing innovative about Swift to include that as a feature. Type inference is *old*. The theory behind type inference goes back to 1958, and languages such as ML

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:47 pm, John Michael Lafayette wrote: > Now that Python has static type checking It certainly does not. It appears you have misunderstood the purpose and meaning of PEP 484. PEP 484 provides a *standard meaning for function annotations* as type-hints, which may be useful

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

Am 12.10.2015 um 13:39 schrieb Steven D'Aprano: Auto-complete is a fine and useful tool. But if you are crippled as a programmer without it, well, then you can hardly claim to understand the language or framework you are programming in if you cannot use it without an IDE doing half the work for

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 12/10/2015 16:47, Michael Torrie wrote: On 10/12/2015 07:30 AM, Bartc wrote: On 12/10/2015 03:45, Michael Torrie wrote: C++ introduced it a while ago (C++11), and D has had it from the beginning. Even lowly FreeBasic has it. [I'm] surprised Basic needs it. The last time I looked, $A

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

Bartc : > (Example, calling fib(40) on the example below took 90 seconds on > Python 3.4, 11 seconds with PyPy, but only 1.8 seconds running the > equivalent with FreeBasic: I don't know what you need fibonacci numbers for, but speed is not the essence of most programming tasks.

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 12/10/2015 18:20, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: Bartc : (Example, calling fib(40) on the example below took 90 seconds on Python 3.4, 11 seconds with PyPy, but only 1.8 seconds running the equivalent with FreeBasic: I don't know what you need fibonacci numbers for, It's a

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 10/12/2015 12:08 PM, Michael Torrie wrote: Also many Python editing environments do support basic completion. However completion is actually very difficult to implement in a static manner because Python is so dynamic. I can import any standard library module and rename it as needed. Since

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Bartc wrote: > On 12/10/2015 18:20, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > >> Bartc : >> >> (Example, calling fib(40) on the example below took 90 seconds on >>> Python 3.4, 11 seconds with PyPy, but only 1.8 seconds running the >>> equivalent

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

Sibylle Koczian writes: > Am 12.10.2015 um 13:39 schrieb Steven D'Aprano: > > Auto-complete is a fine and useful tool. But if you are crippled as a > > programmer without it, well, then you can hardly claim to understand the > > language or framework you are programming in

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:20 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > As for managing complexity, many people believe static typing is a > crucial tool. I disagree. Static typing adds vast amounts of noise to > the code. Only if you are stuck in the 1970s. And even then, it is not always noise, type

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 13/10/2015 01:07, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:20 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: As for managing complexity, many people believe static typing is a crucial tool. I disagree. Static typing adds vast amounts of noise to the code. Only if you are stuck in the 1970s. And even

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 10/12/2015 06:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Where is the "vast amounts of noise" added to the code? Well in Java code for one. No wonder they require auto-completion. Java class-based namespaces must be a nightmare to work with. That and all the over-use of design patterns that Java

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 9 October 2015 at 17:26, John Michael Lafayette wrote: > I would like Python to have a strong typing feature that can co-exist with > the current dynamic typing system. Currently Python is like this: > > var animal = Factory.make("dog") # okay. > var dog

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

> You can run your code inside a class definition, abuse metaclassing to replace the namespace with yourown dict and override the __setitem__ function. Then you can implement a var function so it inspect into it's caller namespace, and inserts the given key into it. This hack doesn't apply on any

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 9 October 2015 at 17:26, John Michael Lafayette wrote: I would like Python to also be able to also do this: Animal a = Factory.make("dog")# okay. Dog is Animal. Dog d = Factory.make("dog") # okay. Dog is Dog. Cat c = Factory.make("cat")

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

Hi, > You might like to investigate Boo, which is a .NET-based > language with a Python-like syntax: AFAIK Unity just dropped Boo support from version 5.0 because virtually nobody used it. Those little known niche languages are destined to extinct. Interesting language is Apple's Swift. While

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:24 am, Vladimir Ignatov wrote: > Hi, > >> You might like to investigate Boo, which is a .NET-based >> language with a Python-like syntax: > > AFAIK Unity just dropped Boo support from version 5.0 because > virtually nobody used it. What's Unity? I've never heard of it.

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 10/11/2015 06:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > That's called type inference, and there's nothing innovative about Swift to > include that as a feature. Type inference is *old*. The theory behind type > inference goes back to 1958, and languages such as ML and OCaml have > included it for

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 09/10/2015 17:03, John Michael Lafayette wrote: I would like Python to have a strong typing feature that can co-exist with the current dynamic typing system. Currently Python is like this: var animal = Factory.make("dog") #okay var dog = Factory.make("dog") #okay As Ben Finney has all

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 09/10/2015 17:26, John Michael Lafayette wrote: I would like Python to have a strong typing feature that can co-exist with the current dynamic typing system. Currently Python is like this: var animal = Factory.make("dog") # okay. var dog = Factory.make("dog") # okay.

Re: Strong typing implementation for Python

On 10/09/2015 10:26 AM, John Michael Lafayette wrote: > I would like Python to have a strong typing feature that can co-exist with > the current dynamic typing system. Currently Python is like this: > > var animal = Factory.make("dog") # okay. > var dog = Factory.make("dog") #

Static typing implementation for Python (was: Strong typing implementation for Python)

John Michael Lafayette writes: > I would like Python to have a strong typing feature that can co-exist > with the current dynamic typing system. You have incorrectly conflated two separate matters. The opposite of string typing is weak typing. Python has strong

Strong typing implementation for Python

I would like Python to have a strong typing feature that can co-exist with the current dynamic typing system. Currently Python is like this: var animal = Factory.make("dog") #okay var dog = Factory.make("dog") #okay -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Strong typing implementation for Python

I would like Python to have a strong typing feature that can co-exist with the current dynamic typing system. Currently Python is like this: var animal = Factory.make("dog") # okay. var dog = Factory.make("dog") # okay. var cat = Factory.make("dog")# are you sure? I