Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmarreck | Hacker News Reader

A better question might be, why are people still using OO dynamic languages without any typing?

> without any typing?

    >>> "abc" + 321
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    TypeError: can only concatenate str (not "int") to str

I rest my case.

Not sure. Is anyone using a language like that? Python certainly isn’t one.

> Python certainly isn’t one.

I am not a Python expert, but...

Python is described as OO and I thought is is dynamically typed

Not quite "without any typing" but close

Not really. Python's strongly typed, but dynamically. You can think of Python variables as untyped references to strongly typed values: the values are typed, but their names are not.

I agree with your last sentence, but I think we shouldn't say python itself is "strongly typed".

Why, specifically? It's commonly described as strongly typed and I'm not aware of an argument against that.

Is the specific reason not clear? You just said it. The variables are untyped.

Strong versus weak is not super solidly defined as referring only to values and not variables.

> Is the specific reason not clear?

Correct.

> Strong versus weak is not super solidly defined as referring only to values and not variables.

You're right. It's not super solidly defined as referring only to variables and not values, either. If dynamic typing is the same as weak typing, there'd be no point in having both phrases.

>> Is the specific reason not clear?

> Correct.

Is it still unclear with the clarification you didn't quote? I can't tell if I need to explain more or not.

> It's not super solidly defined as referring only to variables and not values, either.

I didn't mean to suggest it was.

> If dynamic typing is the same as weak typing, there'd be no point in having both phrases.

It's not the same. There's a bunch of things referred to as "weak".

> untyped references to strongly typed values

I would call that weakly typed since there is no step before your code runs that validates (or even tries to validate) that your program satisfies a "type system". But since the definition of "strong" and "weak" typing has always been vague, I will just say that it is stupidly typed[1], and that I am a pedantic nerd.

1. https://danieltuveson.github.io/programming/languages/stupid...

This is just hair splitting. What everyone means by "typing" today is typing members in structures and co. Every time you reach for python after a typed language, it feels like going through a barbed minefield blindfolded. The fact that its "world" almost entirely consists of little moving subclasses in subnamespaces doesn't help either. All you can think of python is how to write as few lines of it as possible to return to DX faster. It is my only use case for AI-based development because I cannot stand an extra minute in this abomination without cursing into the editor.

> Every time you reach for python after a typed language, it feels like going through a barbed minefield blindfolded.

Using both Python and mandatorily statically typed languages regularly professsionally (my main working languages being C#, Python, and a mix of JS and TS), that's not my experience at all.

(Of course, Python has a variety of optional static typecheckers with differing degrees of type inference, as well as supporting explicit type specifications; its not untyped unless you choose to use it that way.)

> mandatorily statically typed languages.... C#, Python, and a mix of JS and TS

JS and TS are not good examples of typed languages.

I dunno about c#

It's not hairsplitting, and it's not what everyone means, just the people you talk to. Languages without typing are things like assembly language(s), which underlie everything you do on a computer and is (are) still in the TIOBE Index's top 20 https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index, as well as much more obscure languages. The distinction between untyped languages and dynamically typed languages is night and day.

I'm pretty competent in Python, C, Java, JavaScript, assembly, and a number of other languages†, and my experience in Python is nothing like what you're describing, although I do have my own frustrations with it. It's possible that when you're more experienced you'll have a different perspective, but it sounds like you're stuck inside a pretty small bubble right now.

______

† Last year I also programmed in C++, Lua, C#, bash, Tcl, Emacs Lisp, Forth, Golang, OCaml, Scheme, Perl, Common Lisp, and the ngspice scripting language.

I have a similar list, no need to worry about my YoE in various things. I left full-time python many years ago. You're right about my current bubble though. I find it productive and useful, compared to python which I have to touch from time to time. My worst gripe is that ML is my new interest and it is all python. I'm basically screwed.

> Not really. Python's strongly typed, but dynamically

Yea, nah!

You cannot have both.

That's an interesting and uncommon claim.

There are different definitions of most of the terms around typing which make most typing conversations confusing as people talk past each other.

Particularly, there is a common definition of “typed” which is exactly equivalent to “statically typed” under which all so-called “dynamically typed” languages are actually “untyped”, and within that system strong and weak typing are either a meaningless distinction or one within the set of statically types languages.

There's also, of course, a common usage within which “dynamically typed” is meaningful and strong vs. weak typing is a separate distinction, usually mostly discussed within languages with dynamic typing, though languages like C being both statically typed and weakly typed has been discussed.

TaPL should be required reading for self proclaimed "engineers". Do untyped languages even exist, or could they? maybe something purely theoretical for ivory tower academics? Even POSIX shell and assembler type their values.

> Do untyped languages even exist, or could they? Even POSIX shell and assembler type their values.

I program in assembly language. Memory is just a big array of bytes. Values don't have types, but each instruction chooses what type to interpret memory as - e.g. uint8, int16, float32, x86 real-mode pointer, long-mode pointer, etc.

I think one can reasonably argue that, if the language only has a single type, it is effectively "untyped".

That would mean languages like Tcl. Or, for that matter, B.

BCPL[0], BLISS[1], and Forth[2] are all untyped.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCPL

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_(programming_language)

Bah, I meant strongly or statically typed, not just "typed"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com