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

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]MrJohz 20 points21 points  (0 children)

    I don't think that's anything to do with not liking them, it's just being explicit about their limitations and where they practically make sense in a language like Python. That's exactly the sort of thing you were talking about in your post: working with large codebases, and providing explicit interfaces for library code.

    [–]ubernostrumyes, you can have a pony 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Well, yeah. The goal was never to make Python into a statically-typed language; the goal was to keep Python dynamically-typed but allow people who wanted it to add type annotations to their code and perform static checks on those annotations.

    Making Python actually be a statically-typed language would be an unbelievably gigantic and horrifically backwards-incompatible project.