cross-posted from: https://piefed.jeena.net/post/33729
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
66 points (92.3% liked)
Python
1916 readers
3 users here now
A community for talking about the Python programming language.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Hardware cycles are cheap. Wetware cycles are expensive."
Then why do Python people insist on having the programmer do so much stuff instead of letting a compiler do it?
Examples?
Verifying that your different pieces of code actually work together. With a static type system and similar compiler features you can lighten the mental load a lot compared to languages like Python where you need to keep it all in your head.
Python has (optional) types now.
The problem with optional typing is that it has all the downsides of both but gives you very little of the advantages of a strong static type system, e.g. being able to rely on types catching certain kinds of errors when refactoring because you don't know for sure that all APIs have types. It is really nothing more than an admission by dynamically typed languages that static types are so useful you can't really do without them while at the same time not admitting that it might be best to move to a language and library ecosystem that was designed with static types from the start.
Such as?