syntax difference

[Jim Lee]

On 06/17/2018 01:56 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Jim Lee <jlee54 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/17/2018 01:35 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko at pacujo.net> wrote:
>>>> Jim Lee <jlee54 at gmail.com>:
>>>>> IMHO, trying to shoehorn static type checking on top of a dynamically
>>>>> typed language shows that the wrong language was chosen for the job.
>>>> I'm also saddened by the type hinting initiative. When you try to be
>>>> best for everybody, you end up being best for nobody. The niche Python
>>>> has successfully occupied is huge. Why risk it all by trying to take the
>>>> whole cake?
>>> Did you complain when function annotations were introduced back in 2006?
>>>
>>> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/
>>>
>>> That's TWELVE YEARS ago. Over in the Node.js world, that's ... uhh,
>>> actually that's longer ago than Node.js has even been around. Another
>>> trendy language is Go... oh wait, that wasn't around in 2006 either.
>>>
>>> Type annotations have been in Python for nearly twelve years; ten if
>>> you count the actual release of Python 3.0. The thing that changed
>>> more recently was that *non-type* annotations were deprecated, since
>>> very few use-cases were found. When did the shoehorning happen,
>>> exactly?
>>>
>>> ChrisA
>> What does time have to do with anything?  I wasn't using Python in 2006.  A
>> bad idea is a bad idea, regardless of *when* it was conceived.
>>
> You talk about "risk it all by trying to take the whole cake" as if
> annotations are a change. But if they were already around before you
> first met the language, then they're just part of the language. You
> might as well argue against the += operator or list comprehensions.
>
> ChrisA
You seem to have lost the attribution to those comments in your reply.  
I wasn't the one who talked about

"risk it all by trying to take the whole cake".

-Jim