Python programmers are crying out for types it seems. It’s a shame the Python foundation haven’t blessed a spec. Better to get everyone working on a single slightly imperfect standard than a morass or differing ideas.

▲

woodruffw 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

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 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		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 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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)
	▲	petesergeant 3 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		If you can’t do fast prototypes with types, you need to get better at using types. It’s very fast to throw stuff together in TypeScript.
	▲	solarkraft 5 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		because i want fast development with types.
	▲	philipallstar 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> 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.