not the OP but I share the sentiment. On a syntax level simply because it adds types, and one of the joys of writing a dynamic language is that you don't have types filling so much of your code.

But much more important to me, on a semantic level. Late binding of all things is a feature of dynamic languages, not a bug. I have no idea why we're trying to force a static typing mindset onto a dynamic language.

I wish we could all remember that the original idea of OO is that objects interpret the messages they receive, not external typecheckers.

> On a syntax level simply because it adds types, and one of the joys of writing a dynamic language is that you don't have types filling so much of your code.

Then good that you don't have to do that. Type hinting in python is optional and it's unlikely that this will ever change.

> I have no idea why we're trying to force a static typing mindset onto a dynamic language.

Because python ist not a toy-language anymore. It's used for big projects too, and for them features like this are very neccessary.

>Because python ist not a toy-language anymore. It's used for big projects too, and for them features like this are very neccessary.

I've worked on multi-million line dynamic codebases in settings that require robustness and correctness (telecommunications/Erlang) and it's an absolute ridiculous idea that one needs type checking to build industry standard codebases and architecture.

The Java/C++ paradigm is not the only software paradigm to built correct software.