Because the "issues" with type hinting that you are talking about are only based on what you wished it was, not on what it is or what it could become!
Ask yourself this: what about the python's type hinting story you think could be improved without turning python into a statically typed language? What about the python's type checking story that is missing or broken and that is attributable to the language and not to the tool?
> I suppose you're more interested in the article's topic.
Quite frankly, no. My motivation for the conversation now is mostly to see how long is going to take you to realize that you are merely wishing that your motorboat could fly like a hydroplane. It's not about "misconceptions", it's about you complaining about something not meeting your unfounded expectations .
Please don't read it as snark. It was not my intention.
What I am trying to say is that perhaps the lesson you could take from this it's to not think that something is "inferior" or "needs fixing" just because it doesn't immediately meet your expectations.
It isn't Python's fault that you have to use at the job even though you don't like it.
It isn't Python's fault that you have to use even though you are absolutely certain that dynamically typed languages are worse.
It isn't Python's fault that type hints are just hints and can not become a full-fledged type system.
It isn't Python's fault that mypy is still not mature enough to work reliably for you.
And it certainly isn't Python's fault that your coworkers don't care about all that as much as you do.
> "What I am trying to say is that perhaps the lesson you could take"
I think there's a lesson here, but it's for you rather than me.
This is tiring. You keep making stuff up for the sake of argument. I never claimed I didn't like Python; in fact I like it. I never claimed it was Python's fault.
I thought you were going to "wait until I realize". Go on waiting, then. Off you go!
I am sorry for my assumption, I just wouldn't think that someone so certain of the superiority of statically typed languages and so disappointed (with a feature that is barely a defining aspect of it) would also claim to like it.
Anyway, you also had the chance to respond to other questions I made, but instead you preferred to stick to defensive retorts.
Your questions weren't very reasonable, were they? You made lots of claims about what you supposed I thought. I'm under no obligation to answer, for example, what "my company and team are optimizing for", that's an open ended question which is not reasonable to ask in this context, nor would it benefit me to answer it in any way, nor is it related to the question at hand. It looks like cross-examination, something explicitly discouraged by HN guidelines.
I'm not interested in being "educated". In general, you sound very condescending regardless of your claims that you are not snarky.
It's easier to pick on someone's comments than to make a comment of your own, because that would open you to correction and criticism. I think that's what's going on with you in this case.
Regardless, I suggest you stick to commenting about TFA in the future. It will go better for you. You'll be criticized, but that's par for the course.
I don't see what is unreasonable about prodding for the "why" of the reasons you gave (which was basically the point of asking what your company wanted to optimize by using Python), and I don't see what is unreasonable about asking what would be your way to solving what "disappoints" you about the typing story without changing the language.
> I'm not interested in being "educated" by knowitalls.
From where I am standing, you are trying to get your coworkers to adopt some practice without a strong case for how it would help them or the bottomline, purely out of your belief that statically languages are better. If you think I am being the know-it-all here, fine.
> It's easier to pick on someone's comments than to make a comment of your own, because that would open you to correction and criticism.
Someone else in the thread already pointed out that your original comment and TFA are basically a statement of opinion, not of fact. I do not see what kind of comment we can have except the meta-commentary.
> I don't see what is unreasonable about prodding [...]
Yes, I can see that you fail to acknowledge the unreasonability of your prodding. Time to change your tack, maybe voice an opinion of your own, on the actual article, and expose yourself to critique?
Maybe drop the condescending tone and try to avoid the cross-examination? It's against the rules on HN.
> I do not see what kind of comment we can have except the meta-commentary.
I can't help you with what you "don't see"; I cannot make you fix your blind spots. I've already told you your meta-commentary is unwanted. I do not welcome it, it's unhelpful, and every single assumption you've made has been wrong (and smug) so far. It's not my job to present my case to you, you're not doing a consultancy here, nor do you demonstrate particular expertise on the subject.
I foresee another pointless reply of your own. I'll let you have the last word.
In regards to "type hinting/type checking" in Python, my "opinion" is somewhat similar to automated testing: "use it when it can help increase your confidence about the soundness of your program and its design, but don't rely on it as a guarantee of it being bug-free."
In regards to the article, my opinion is that if you want to claim "disappointment" with a language your expectations should be aligned with the language developers and the general motivations of the community at large. Another opinion is that if the author took the time to understand these underlying motivations there would be no "disappointment" and consequently no article, perhaps?
> expose yourself to critique
Hum, that's interesting. I don't think of "expressing an opinion" as something that "exposes oneself to critique". Maybe I am too accustomed with the idea of "keeping my identity small" and "strong opinions, loosely held", that it's natural to me to differentiate an "attack" on the argument vs the person?
Any chance is this why you are so defensive?
> try to avoid the cross-examination? It's against the rules on HN.
First, not rules but guidelines. Second, you have been responding with passive-aggressive insults and retorts which also makes for unpleasant conversation. Third and most important, there is no cross-examination. I am not challenging your motives or trying to invalidate you as a way to invalidate your opinion. The "prodding" is because I don't think your argument has any merit yet, but perhaps this could change if you provided some underlying reason?
> I've already told you your meta-commentary is unwanted.
It's not lost on me that I when I asked "what you would like to change about python's type hinting without changing the language, and what is wrong about python's type checking that is not just a matter of improving the tool", you completely ignored it and preferred to continue with this grating back-and-forth.
Anyway, you are right when you say it's time to lay this one to rest. I hope the next one gets to be more enlightening to both of us.
> First, not rules but guidelines. Second, you have been responding with passive-aggressive insults and retorts which also makes for unpleasant conversation.
You continue nitpicking! You would do better if you followed those "guidelines". Indeed this conversation has been unpleasant, but it's all on you. You have been condescending and insulting. I suggest you focus your energies on better enterprises next time, maybe engage with the article itself instead of picking on others. It will do you good.
> The "prodding" is because I don't think your argument has any merit yet, but perhaps this could change if you provided some underlying reason?
Surely you can see there's nothing to gain by explaining myself to someone who thinks "my argument doesn't have any merit" (and who doesn't think that's insulting) and who keeps misrepresenting everything I say? I just said something, shared by many others, and you felt triggered by the opinion: that's fine, I don't want to convince you of anything, nor do I feel like being "educated" by you.
> Maybe I am too accustomed with the idea of "keeping my identity small" and "strong opinions, loosely held", that it's natural to me to differentiate an "attack" on the argument vs the person?
Well, you haven't done a good job at it, then!
What do you hope to gain, at this point? Are you waiting for me to "see reason"? That's not going to happen. Surely you see sooner or later dang will intervene here and tell us to shut it down?
re: insulting, passive-aggressive behavior: I re-read our exchange from the start. I was polite, even agreed with you sometimes ("I'm nodding in agreement, why do you think I think otherwise") while your tone kept getting more condescending with each reply, failing to accept my agreements and prodding in what I guess you felt was an "educational" tone. Honestly, hand on your heart, do you believe your responses were made in the best possible tone and were the best way to conduct an honest conversation? Do you believe the default position of "this argument has no merit, but maybe if this person explains his team's and company's motivations to my satisfaction I might change my mind" is a mindset that is conducive to amicable conversation? I think, if you're honest, you should admit maybe a tiny bit of misbehavior here.
I also read replies you've made in other articles and you seem more reasonable. I'll chalk it up to you not being able to let go at this point, and so you must bite and nitpick at everything I say. I really think you should let it go, make your peace with not being able to convince me of your point of view, and move on to other enterprises.
I thought you were going to let me have the last word. ;)
> someone who thinks "my argument doesn't have any merit" (and who doesn't think that's insulting)
You forgot the yet. No, it's not nitpicking. Without it, it would be a mere judgmental sentence and it would make sense if you felt dismissed. With it, it is a sign that I am trying to reach for a point of agreement or an understanding.
You are claiming I am the one "biting and nitpicking on everything", but you also could've given a much more charitable interpretation to this, much like you could have done it for the last 6-7 exchanges we had.
And sorry, but I really don't see what is "insulting" about it. Well, at least I don't see how this is insulting if we are to have a rational conversation. This would be insulting only for those who'd be tying their self-image to any of the things being discussed.
> Honestly, hand on your heart, do you believe your responses were made in the best possible tone and were the best way to conduct an honest conversation?
Yes...?
Maybe I am relying too much on the Socratic method, but my questions were mostly to dig in for Truth, not to grieve you. But given the way that old man died, perhaps I should try a different path to not end on the same way as he did.
Because the "issues" with type hinting that you are talking about are only based on what you wished it was, not on what it is or what it could become!
Ask yourself this: what about the python's type hinting story you think could be improved without turning python into a statically typed language? What about the python's type checking story that is missing or broken and that is attributable to the language and not to the tool?
> I suppose you're more interested in the article's topic.
Quite frankly, no. My motivation for the conversation now is mostly to see how long is going to take you to realize that you are merely wishing that your motorboat could fly like a hydroplane. It's not about "misconceptions", it's about you complaining about something not meeting your unfounded expectations .