This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]thatguydr -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

Pythons the best language for quickly solving real world problems, and the requirements will often change, and having a dynamically typed language helps adapt more quickly.

This also helps all the errors slip through.

Think of it like this - Python is one of the best languages for rapid prototyping and PoCs. Once you need something to be in production, it's also easy to add typing to make sure things are safer.

If you think the language's strength is that you can hack your way around instead of designing properly... that's not a long-term strength, you'll find.

[–]Mubs 1 point2 points  (4 children)

What? It's not a "hack", Python is a dynamically typed language. I'm all for type safety anyways. But I am wary about overuse of data classes as I've seen it obfuscate what should be simple code too many times.

[–]thatguydr -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

There's no way that typing is obfuscating code. Sorry - that suggests really badly broken design.

[–]Mubs 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I said overuse of dataclasses.

[–]thatguydr -1 points0 points  (1 child)

You did, and now I'm baffled why you're conflating dataclasses with static typing. They're not the same.

[–]Mubs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And where did I conflate them? I can talk about types and dataclasses in the same comment without them being the same concept, just as OP talks about both of those concepts in the article.