Static Typing in Python

[Jacek Generowicz]

Peter Hickman <peter at semantico.com> writes:

> Jacek Generowicz wrote:

[...]

> Right. I should listen to you because you are an authority on Typing
> but ignore Guido van Rossum.

No, I am saying that you should try using your brain.

> So you are saying the Guido van Rossum doesn't know what he is talking
> about and I should take it from you what he really meant?

No, I am saying that you should try thinking about the _meaning_ of
the words in the context in which they appear.

> you are positing to know what he really meant.

I am suggesting an interpretation of what he said, which you are free
to accept or reject. However, I recommend that you accept or reject it
on the basis of some _thoughtful_ consideration of the information being
presented to you. You appear to be bent on not thinking at all.

> > ... he seems to be suggesting that Python is NOT weakly typed ... so
> > the implication seems to be that it IS strongly typed. What he's
> > really hinting at is the fact that weak-vs-strong and
> > static-vs-dynamic are orthogonal axes.
> 
> Well if we are to assume that Guido doesn't know what he is talking
> about then you can probably twist his words to suit whatever you want
> him to mean (as opposed to what he actually said).
> 
> 
> > (Hint: "runtime typing" is almost synonymous with "dynamic typing".)
> 
> Hint: Guido used the words 'strong', 'weak' and 'runtime' in the same
> discussion and clearly delineated one from the others.

Hint: read it again, and try to _think_ about what it actually means,
rather than trying to find support for your misconceptions.

> > What an absurd statement. You are suggesting that Python's type system
> > somehow depends on the relative magnitudes of two people's knowledge.
> 
> When one of them is the creator and guiding light of the language. Yes.

So, if Guido were to have a stroke tonight and become a human
vegetable, thereby making my knowledge of Python exceed his, Python's
type system would magically change from weak to strong overnight ?

Just _think_ about what you are saying.

Python's type system is what it is, regardless of anybody's opinion
about it, and regardless of how knowledgeable anybody is about
anything. This is blatantly obvious to anyone who actually _thinks_
about it.

> > I certainly don't know more about Python than Guido does, but I do
> > appear to know more about type system nomenclature than Guido does :-)
> 
> Is this a resort to argument from authority. (no smiley)

Did you even read the very next thing I wrote? which you conveniently
(for your trolling purposes) elided.

> > Argument from authority is remains very unconvincing, even if that
> > authority is Guido himself.
> 
> pot/kettle/black

I presented you with an explanation of what I consider strong, weak,
static and dynamic typing to mean. I pointed out to you that in the
very piece of an interview you quoted, Guido seems to be agreeing with
me. Nowhere am I suggesting that you believe me because of my
"authority"; I am suggesting that you _think_ about what is being
said.

All you have to say is "Guido this, Guido that".

Are you capable of thinking for yourself ?

(Congratulations for making me sound like Erik Naggum).

Now, if you want to discuss what strong, weak, static and dynamic
typing means, and how it applies to various languages, then I'm happy
to discuss it with you. If all you are going to do is repeat your
misconceptions and your religious belief in Guido's complete
infallability, then don't be surprised if you don't hear from me
again.