Python has optional type annotations. Most new code tends to have them, and they help tremendously navigating and understanding large codebases.
Mypy's type system is quite advanced compared to some statically typed language like C and Go; it has generics, union types, inference, and it can prove properties of types from control flow. I work mostly in Rust, Haskell, and Python, and I rarely find Mypy limiting.
You do have to embrace types though; if you have a dictly typed program where everything is a Dict[str, Any], then putting that in annotations isn’t going to be very helpful; converting the dicts to named tuples or dataclasses is.
Partly that's because the ecosystem support isn't there - lots of libraries don't have types, or have types that behave oddly, or even require their own plugin for mypy. I suspect that's going to slowly change over time, but I feel like the infrastructure doesn't feel as strong as it did in the early days of Typescript, and the gradual change feels even more gradual.
Partly it's just that the syntax is painful as soon as you want to do anything remotely complex. For example, generics are defined in different ways depending on what you're making generic, and the TypeVar system is usable, but ugly and very unintuitive. There's also missing syntax for things like inline type assertions, which aren't great, but are often useful for mixing static and dynamic code together.
And I think partly it's also that Python has a much higher level of dynamism in the type system - lots of "clever" things are possible in Python that just wouldn't be possible in the same way in Javascript - which means that mypy has a much more difficult time in trying to describe the idiomatic Python patterns that people are actually using. In Typescript, figuring out the correct types feels like an extension of writing natural Javascript code and understanding the flow of data through the program. With mypy, it feels like I'm restricted to writing the subset of Java-like code that conforms to the type checker.
It's a disappointing feeling, because I like static types, and I had hoped it would help solve the problem of large codebases in Python. But in my last project it became so painful to use, and felt like it was adding so little (and preventing so few actual issues), that I kind of regretted pushing for it.
I hope a lot of these problems are just teething issues, and that over time it'll get better. But right now I would be very cautious about using it in production.
JS has Object.setPrototypeOf(), among other things, so I doubt this.
Or even just TypedDict, which often works without any changes besides annotations.
> I've used Mypy since 2016 on big as well as small codebases, and it has been extremely useful for me.
You can both be right. It's both not very good compared to a strict type system, and still way better than not having it.
In what ways do think it's painful?
The other thing which rubbed me the wrong way was that the python was happy to run the code with completely wrong type hints.
I guess I went into it with wrong expectations, even though it says right in the name - it's "type hints". The whole experience felt more like a formalized documentation with partially working optional verification (which can't really be relied upon).
But do write type hints. I recently got thrown into a large-ish project where neither types nor docs where used. Trying to figure out wth a parameter was supposed to be wasn't a pleasant experience for a newcomer. In addition to improving DX, I also believe it's alot more effective in the long run.
I saw how these guys were developing: write code, run code, deal with the runtime crashes they encounter, then run code some more and deal with other unexpected runtime crashes. It would have been a lot faster and more stable if they'd just used type hints and static type checking, as their IDE could've easily found many of these bugs for them immediately.
They are also for static checking.
If you choose to run the code despite that failing (which you can, because there is no execution dependency on type-checking) that’s a choice, but its kind of odd to complain that Python lets you do that.
Having a Scala code base not compile because someone went all-in on type-level programming, and now simple changes require an understanding of category theory and the associated compiler flags .. that's real pain.
python's type-documentations are useful but sometimes they are just wrong which makes it impossible to actually trust in them.
> Having a Scala code base not compile because someone went all-in on type-level programming, and now simple changes require an understanding of category theory and the associated compiler flags .. that's real pain.
Well, the same can happen in python if someone goes crazy and uses a lot of reflection / dynamic changes (i.e. overwriting builtin methods etc.). In both cases it sucks and should have been prevented by other people, but at least in the case with Scala you still have a compiler that can help you "unroll" those changes because it tells you when you screw up. In python you can only have tests or pray.
People do have bad habits of cramming everything into dictionaries but if you do some type hinting and use data classes heavily you’ll really have a good experience.
I could take or leave mypy personally.
I wish I'd kept it but a few years ago someone did an analysis of all the public python code in github to see what functions were called the most.
#1 was `type()`. <shocked face>
Moreover, it has static type checkers with varying degrees of support for type inference.
And static types are for people who are too lazy to write test code.
Where did you come up with this?
Functional tests will test the correct types, too.
Edit: If you need an object that swims and quacks, you don't need to care if it is a rubber duck or an animal.