Static typing

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Tayss wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers <bdesth.nospam at removeme.free.fr> wrote in message news:<3f23ae06$0$21093$626a54ce at news.free.fr>...
> 
>>>FWIW, I do favor the addition of optional static typing for the two
>>>reasons Scott described - interface documentation and optimization.
>>
>>Interface documentation may be obtained in others ways (docstring for 
>>exemple).
> 
> 
> Indeed!  As I remember, Jython uses doc strings for typing, when it
> presents an API to Java.  So it's in the comments, and I think that's
> an oddly appropriate place for hints to the compiler.

In CPython, it is not supposed to be a hint to the compiler, it's 
supposed to be API documentation for the programmer.

>>And I'm not sure static typing would optimize anything, but 
>>not being a Python (nor anything else) guru, I would not bet my hand on 
>>this...
> 
> 
> If you mess around with lisp, you can easily see the compiled assembly
> language of your functions when you experiment with optional typing. 
> (By calling the function "disassemble".)  Normally, the compiler spews
> a lot of general code because it doesn't know what you've passed in. 
> But when you promise that you're passing in numbers or something, the
> assembly language is much tighter.

Lisp is not Python. I was talking about static typing 'optimizing' 
anything in Python.

> Sort of like when someone asks you to move something to a different
> house, and you have no idea how big it is.  If you were told, "It's
> just a pillow," you know that you don't need to order a huge truck or
> take any special precautions.

Err... Given the actual speed and cost of a decent PC processor, I'm not 
willing to trade my time for a few milliseconds. And if I really need to 
have a really fast code, I know where my C compiler is !-)

Bruno