[pkoird]

Terrible is using a dynamic programming language and expecting static features from it. Besides, linters and type hinting have come a long way.

[dafhagionio]

>Besides, linters and type hinting have come a long way.

You acknowledge that the kinds of static analysis that are feasible in Python are valuable, but it's "terrible" to want the kinds of static analysis that are infeasible. How interesting that the two boundaries line up exactly.

[bb88]

If you want static typing, typically you want to avoid python.

If you want the freedom to easily mangle json or other dynamic types, you'd enjoy python.

[the_af]

They have, but I find they still lag behind the state of the art. Python insistence on optional, second thought support for type hints is frustrating.

Linting has saved my bacon more than once, granted.

[anonzzzies]

Still incredibly horrible for many cases. And very slow compared to things that have been around for decades. Do some ocaml and you see how incredibly bad everything 'linted' is. You can compile millions of lines in seconds in ocaml, eh delphi on a 90s computer, jai (I don't find Blow sympathetic but he does point out how lame everything is and that's good) etc, but when my 50k python or typescript project starts linting when doing a yarn build, I have time for a good workout.

Ocaml is an interesting example imho, as the type inference engine is so good you hardly have to specify types. When you read it and squint, it looks dynamic. It's not.