Re:Python programming is drowning in red tape
by EdwardDiego on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @07:22AM
(#22876495)
That's a thought.
Is the point where your Python codebase needs type hinting to be readable a signal that you've hit the dynamic language/complexity impedance mismatch?
Or is it a sign that your code's readability could be better?
Your "session" remark reminds me of trying to understand the Ruby IMAP library when the only documentation was autogenerated API docs, I had to follow one variable through the entire stack to figure out what it's original type and thus capability, was.
I taught myself to code in Python, and find that well-written Python makes sense without types (tooling support aside), but then being honest, most of the Python code I meet professionally, is barely okay written.
I guess it's like Java, industrial programming code needs a type system to make code written averagely understandable, but not so much of a type system that you spend your time fighting obscure compiler errors.
Is the point where your Python codebase needs type hinting to be readable a signal that you've hit the dynamic language/complexity impedance mismatch?
Or is it a sign that your code's readability could be better?
Your "session" remark reminds me of trying to understand the Ruby IMAP library when the only documentation was autogenerated API docs, I had to follow one variable through the entire stack to figure out what it's original type and thus capability, was.
I taught myself to code in Python, and find that well-written Python makes sense without types (tooling support aside), but then being honest, most of the Python code I meet professionally, is barely okay written.
I guess it's like Java, industrial programming code needs a type system to make code written averagely understandable, but not so much of a type system that you spend your time fighting obscure compiler errors.