News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Pyrefly by masklinn on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @11:18AM (#43833854)
What would you expect "useful" to be if your codebase is basically incompatible with type checking?
Re:Pyrefly by koakuma-chan on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @11:39AM (#43834123)
I expected that I would be able to run the check command and it would just work. Upon reading the docs, this tool recommends incremental adoption, and after using `--suppress-errors`, `# pyrefly: ignore` is all over my codebase.
Re:Pyrefly by krick on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @11:55AM (#43834371)
I know I shouldn't get into this thread, but I'm extremely curious: what did you expect should have happened? I mean, literally, what do you mean by "just work", what work did you expect a type checker to perform if not to show you errors?
Re:Pyrefly by koakuma-chan on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @12:11PM (#43834580)
I expected a reasonable amount of reasonable errors, not 60k+ errors most of which are import-error, even though the code runs fine.
Re:Pyrefly by fastasucan on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @04:12PM (#43837502)
Its the fault of the tool that the codebase had lots of errors?
Re:Pyrefly by koakuma-chan on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @04:28PM (#43837669)
I would say it's the fault of the ecosystem. Hopefully it will get better as libraries adopt type hints.
Re:Pyrefly by nerdponx on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @11:51AM (#43834307)
That's incremental adoption for adding type hints, not for adopting this particular tool in an already-type-hinted codebase.
Re:Pyrefly by Yossarrian22 on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @11:50AM (#43834302)
…how else would it work?
Re:Pyrefly by fastasucan on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @04:11PM (#43837487)
What does "just work" mean? You are comically obtuse.