| > Python is easy to grok It’s what you’re used to. I personally find Python horrible to read because I used to a whole different class of programming languages. But I’m sure some of my code might be hard to read by others who aren’t used to that particular programming language too. > Unit tests do much of what typing checks anyway ... and here's the thing ... you NEED unit tests no matter what. Some, not all. Strictly typed languages are handy when it comes to refactoring and unit tests can sometimes fail there if the design is being changed enough that the unit tests need rewriting too. > No typing system can tell you that you wrote > when you should have written <. Not technically true. Some languages with a richer set of types and operator overloading could have code written to detect that sort of thing. But I do get your point that unit tests are import too. I’ve been programming for > 30 years and in dozens of different languages. In that time I’ve felt strictly typed languages make larger and more mature code based slightly easier to maintain. While loosely typed languages are easier for smaller and/or younger code based. But largely it boils more down to personal preference than anything. I will caveat that by saying the fact that Python supports type annotations should be telling that even dynamic languages benefit from a stricter approach to typing. |