Python is DOOMED! Again!

[Steven D'Aprano]

Mario Figueiredo wrote:

> Static analysis cannot and should not clutter executable code.

(1) It isn't clutter. The human reader uses that information as well as the
compiler, interpreter, type-checker, IDE, text editor, correctness tester,
etc.

(2) Algol, Ada, Boo, C, C#, C++, Cobol, Cobra, D, F#, Fantom, Fortran, Go,
Haskell, Java, Julia, Kotlin, Oberon, Pascal, Rust, Scala and dozens
(hundreds?) of other languages disagree with you.



> Let [type-hints] reside in comments, docstrings, external files, whatever.

Didn't you criticise the use of type-hints in comments earlier? Or am I
confusing you with somebody else?



> I'm actually baffled that PEP 484 came into existence, let alone it 
> having any kind of supporter. Here we have a syntax that even requires 
> changes to the interpreter so it can safely ignore all the type hinting 
> clutter that is going to be added by anyone wanting to perform static 
> analysis.

That *absolutely is not true*. I don't know where you get this from.

Python 3 has supported function annotations for over five years now. The
only change required with PEP 484 is to give those annotations a standard
meaning and encourage people to use them for type-checking instead of
whatever other uses they have or haven't (mostly haven't) thought of.



> The requirements 
> for PEP 484 are heavy. Not only will they force an update to the 
> interpreter, but will also force many users to reformate their function 
> headers in order for them to become bareable to the eye. In fact, no 
> longer will you look at function definitions like you did before.

Again, this is wrong. PEP 484 requires *no* update to the interpreter. It
adds a single library file to the standard library, but use of that is
optional. It requires *nobody* to rewrite or reformate their function
headers. The only people who will do so are those who want to run
type-checkers which support type-hints.



-- 
Steven