[thesuavefactor]

Bullocks. I wrote thousands if not hundred thousandths lines of untyped Python code in over 15 years, for critical systems and thousands of users. It works for me. I'm not confused about the code, I can code and debug quicker than many of my typed-language colleagues and even now that python supports type hints I often only use them in bigger projects or in places where they're actually convenient. It's simply the way of working that a developer is used to.

[angarg12]

I inherited thousands of untyped Python code for critical systems, and it was an unmaintainable hot mess that caused a constant stream of pain. No kidding that was one of the main reasons we had to build a second version of the system.

I love Python, but I use it carefully in large scale production settings. Python with a Typescript-like static type system would hit the sweet spot for me (and yes, I've used mypy, but it doesn't hit the same spot).

[darby_eight]

Man I wish I could somehow convince developers to learn the difference between "dynamically typed", "statically typed", and "gradually typed" languages. An "untyped" language nearly doesn't make any sense semantically: when you have more than one type of value, you have types.

In Python's case, there are probably thousands of types in the standard library alone.

[lamontcg]

This is one of those cases where I fully stand with the people saying that you should read the writers intent and assume that they just didn't have enough coffee that morning yet to be thinking pedantically.

You know exactly what that person meant.

[littlestymaar]

Congratulations, you've achieved perpetual job security as no new developer can actually work on that codebase as well as you do.

Also you're confusing dynamic typing and type inference.

[palata]

> Also you're confusing dynamic typing and type inference.

I think you missed their point, which is that "it is fine for me in Python not to see the type in the source code, and therefore I believe that it should be fine in other languages (be it dynamic typing or type inference)".

[golergka]

The fact that people can get used to something and be productive with it doesn't mean that its not objectively worse than the alternative.

[cwillu]

It's an existence proof that “objectively worse” is, at a minimum, context dependant.

A bicycle is objectively worse if you have many staircases to deal with, but that doesn't imply that getting used to one and being productive with it is fundamentally and necessarily misguided.

[fiddlerwoaroof]

Except that there’s basically no non-subjective evidence in favor of statically typed languages.

[kristopolous]

Don't conflate personal preference as objective truth.

[krallistic]

But in this example, many of the programmers know the alternative (i.e they learned c++, java etc) and still prefer something else...

[p5a0u9l]

Objective merit is very dependent on the problem and the context. There is no absolute merit one way or the other.

[kortilla]

Subjectively is what you mean. Typing out types has a cost when you want a REPL