|
|
|
|
|
|
by owl57
867 days ago
|
|
|
> The vast, vast, vast majority of projects – and I expect 100% of web projects – use languages with incomplete type systems, making what you seek impossible. …where, "what GP seeks" is… > way for [library authors] to indicate that creating a zero-valued struct is a bug I'd say that's a really low and practical bar, you really don't need Coq for that. Good old Python is enough, even without linters and type hints. Of course it's very easy to create an equivalent of zero struct (object without __init__ called), but do you think it's possible to do it while not noticing that you are doing something unusual? |
|
|
No, Python is not enough to "...work with a type system where designers of libraries can actually prevent you from writing bugs." Not even typed Python is going to enable that. Only a complete type system can see the types prevent you from writing those bugs. And I expect exactly nobody is writing HTTP services with a language that has a complete type system – for good reason.
> Of course it's very easy to create an equivalent of zero struct
Yes, you are quite right that you, the library consumer, can Foo.__new__(Foo) and get an object that hasn't had its members initialized just like you can in Go. But unless the library author has specifically called attention to you to initialize the value this way, that little tingling sensation should be telling you that you're doing something wrong. It is not conventional for libraries to have those semantics. Not in Python, not in Go.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.