Have to add that we work exclusively in strongly-typed languages. Kinda want to see how it plays out, but I can't help but argue with him, so I think I'll just go.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (13 children)

I recently tried out Python. I had no idea it still doesn't have runtime enforced typing...

I didn't realize that PHP was decades ahead of it.

[–] exu@feditown.com 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Python is dynamically strong typed, meaning you don't need to specify any types, but unlike JavaScript you can't just use a string where an int was expected. In that sense it's absolutely runtime enforced typing.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

... and yet... it lacks clear and enforced type restrictions which help with clear code contracts. It's certainly better than Javascript but the lack of runtime enforced type checking can force defensive programming in an unnecessary manner.

Your statement isn't strict type checking. It's a restricted form of type coercion. Given how common this feature is in other languages it's weird that pythonistas feel so defensive when discussing the feature. I enjoy strict type checking, but that's my opinion - it makes it a poor choice for the sorts of projects I work on but if it's good for you then enjoy!

[–] wraithcoop@programming.dev 3 points 6 days ago

You said it's not runtime type checking but then switched to "strict type checking" - those aren't the same. Other person has it right, it has runtime type checking. The type checking happens when running your code. I don't think that's particularly useful, it's pretty much sugar on top of what would throw an error anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)