On one one hand: yay types. On the other hand… yeah, this isn’t Python anymore. What used to be a fairly simple language with some well known quirks evolved into an ungrokable katamari of every single possible language feature, a duct taped mush of pieces from different puzzle sets.

I guess it’s a victim of its own success. I just wish it stayed good old, Python, and people would just use different languages for different needs instead of needing one general purpose language for everything.

@decorator some_func

is simply

some_func = decorator(some_func)

There is no C++style "Here is 100 more arcane rules and 1000 exceptions and meta-rules that govern their interaction and application". It's all consistent additions to the language that does nothing but abstract out what you could do by hand but more verbose-ly and error-prone-ly. In fact, nothing in the above comments except type annotations are "language features" at all, they are libraries, and not even implicitly imported at that.

[1]: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/3.10/Lib/collections/...

Namedtuple is intended for when you need a tuple. I’ve used it for e.g numpy array shapes, so image data has names (imgshape.width instead of imgshape[1]). There, you need an actual tuple (or subclass of tuple if you want).

That's not true. You can use make_dataclass the same way you can use namedtuple:

  >>> from dataclasses import make_dataclass
  >>> A = make_dataclass("A", ["x", "y", "z"])
  >>> A(1, 2, 3)
  A(x=1, y=2, z=3)

[edited for formatting]