Hacker News Reader

Python showed what relaxed types could do. And we could go a long way as it turns out without types. But there are use cases for types, and even python admitted such when they added type annotations.

However, when I was a kid a would put a firecracker next to an object. I didn't bother running the scenario through a compiler to see if the object was of type Explodable() and had an explode() method that would be called.

View on HN

> However, when I was a kid a would put a firecracker next to an object. I didn't bother running the scenario through a compiler to see if the object was of type Explodable() and had an explode() method that would be called.

Duck typing: if it quacks like a duck, and it explodes objects next to it, it's a firequacker

Duck typing. If it quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it might be a duck. But it might also be a nuclear submarine doing a duck impersonation. The question is whether you want a nuclear submarine in your pond.

The philosophy of duck typing is very clear in that yes, you should accept a nuclear submarine in your pound.

The problems are that you won't remember to do the same exact checks everywhere and document them.

Python showed that you can be wrong about your types and still build a successful product.

Unless your product is a Boeing 737 MAX.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com