Comments on: A Python issue

By: Matthew C. Kriner

Matthew C. Kriner — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:29:25 +0000

Cool Thanks for this blog. I am starting python and this got me straight.

By: pantelis

pantelis — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 08:24:57 +0000

I ‘m far from a python expert, but I believe the ‘python way’ is to develop most of your app in small increments interactively using a shell and doctests.

Also the python way seems to be “simple is better than complex” i.e., don’t use maze-like nested data structures with super-complex lifetime and locking rules. Do these parts in C/C++ instead and expose it via simple APIs to python code.

If you stick to these principles it is highly unlikely that you will get hit by the lack of the static type checking crutch.

By: niall

niall — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:21:28 +0000

Similarly I’ve seen one Python method handle input that would require epic levels of Java method overloading thanks to dynamic typing. Whatever typing you go with is a double edged sword.

By: Paddy3118

Paddy3118 — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:42:56 +0000

Try these: http://wiki.python.org/moin/static_source_analysis

They may help.

Dynamic languages are not as amenable to static checking, for example methods may be added to classes at run time. If you use Python in a static manner then it is a waste to not have static type checking too but many find the trade-off’s involved still worth the effort in coding in Python.

Python 3K is making changes to allow optional type annotations in the language syntax but is not going the whole way and adding static type analysis. The community may produce static type checkers for it in the future.

- Paddy

By: Eric Kow

Eric Kow — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:07:46 +0000

Or even more intense are people who use automated proof assistants like Coq, where you get to express and manipulate types like “int array of size 3″. No more bounds checking code; overflows just don’t compile.

By: Eric Kow

Eric Kow — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:03:12 +0000

Well, if you really like static type checking, you should checking out the very strongly statically type checked languages like O’Caml and Haskell. Good Haskellers (unlike myself) don’t just take their type checking lying down. Oh no; they specifically *invent* types to catch themselves making mistakes. It’s a beautiful thing to watch.