syntax difference

[Rick Johnson]

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:17:33 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Jim Lee <jlee54 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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".
> >
> 
> My apologies, stuff wrapped and I misread as I skimmed back. You were
> the one who used the word "shoehorned". In the same way, that sounds
> like you already knew the language, and then someone added extra
> features that don't fit. It's not shoehorning if the feature was
> already there before you met the language.


Red herring!