Python programmers are crying out for types it seems. It’s a shame the Python fo...

woodruffw · 2025-12-17T16:55:26 1765990526

Could you elaborate on what you mean? There are various typing PEPs; they even have their own category[1].

[1]: https://peps.python.org/topic/typing/

dcreager · 2025-12-17T17:04:53 1765991093

And the PEPs are now collated into a larger single typing spec [1], even hosted on a python.org subdomain. (Previously it was hosted on readthedocs)

[1] https://typing.python.org/en/latest/

ReflectedImage · 2025-12-17T10:09:00 1765966140

Speaking as a Python programmer, no. Using types in a prototyping language is madness.

The point is you drop things such as types to enable rapid iteration which enables you to converge to the unknownable business requirements faster.

If you want slow development with types, why not Java?

maccard · 2025-12-17T13:20:32 1765977632

Have you written any go code? it's the closest I've come to actually enjoying a type system - it gets out of your way, and loosely enforces stuff. It could do with some more convenience methods, but overall I'd say it's my most _efficient_ type system. (not necessarily the best)

solarkraft · 2025-12-17T11:43:29 1765971809

because i want fast development with types.

philipallstar · 2025-12-17T10:55:23 1765968923

> Using types in a prototyping language is madness.

It's not a prototyping language or a scripting language or whatever. It's just a language. And types are useful, especially when you can opt out of type checking when you need to. Most of the time you don't want to be reassigning variables to be different types anyway, even though occasionally an escape hatch is nice.