Python is strongly typed, it’s just not statically typed. Python with consistent type hinting is extremely similar to a statically typed language like C#.
I would argue that without consistent and enforced type hinting, dynamically typed languages offer very little benefit from type-checking at runtime. And with consistent, enforced type hinting, they might as well be considered actual statically typed languages.
Don’t get me wrong, that’s a good thing. Properly configured Python development environments basically give you both, even if I’m not a fan of the syntax.
What’s wrong with the syntax? It’s just var_name:Type= value, it’s very similar to Go or Rust. Things get a little wonky with generics (list[Type] or dict[Type]), but it’s still similar to other languages.
One nice thing about it being runtime checked is you can accept union types, deffunc(param: int | float), which isn’t very common in statically typed languages.
But nobody else does, and I need it more on code I am consuming than producing. In fact, many functions rely on being able to send various types for different behavior. Dynamic programming is crazy to me. It’s like guessing. I don’t know what type your code is accepting and I have to guess based on the name of read your code directly.
I have the opposite experience, a ton of libraries I use provide optional types, and the handful that don’t often have a good reason for it (e.g. numpy). Our projects at work have types almost everywhere, and it’s pretty nice to work with.
You can annotate types in Python, and it’s actually pretty nice when used with Pyright/Pylance.
Oh, I know you can, but it’s optional and the syntax is kind of weird. I prefer languages that are strongly typed from the ground up and enforce it.
Python is strongly typed, it’s just not statically typed. Python with consistent type hinting is extremely similar to a statically typed language like C#.
I would argue that without consistent and enforced type hinting, dynamically typed languages offer very little benefit from type-checking at runtime. And with consistent, enforced type hinting, they might as well be considered actual statically typed languages.
Don’t get me wrong, that’s a good thing. Properly configured Python development environments basically give you both, even if I’m not a fan of the syntax.
What’s wrong with the syntax? It’s just
var_name: Type = value, it’s very similar to Go or Rust. Things get a little wonky with generics (list[Type]ordict[Type]), but it’s still similar to other languages.One nice thing about it being runtime checked is you can accept union types,
def func(param: int | float), which isn’t very common in statically typed languages.But nobody else does, and I need it more on code I am consuming than producing. In fact, many functions rely on being able to send various types for different behavior. Dynamic programming is crazy to me. It’s like guessing. I don’t know what type your code is accepting and I have to guess based on the name of read your code directly.
I have the opposite experience, a ton of libraries I use provide optional types, and the handful that don’t often have a good reason for it (e.g. numpy). Our projects at work have types almost everywhere, and it’s pretty nice to work with.