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 -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list