[HenriTEL]

I don't get the point of a runtime type checker. It adds a lot of noise with those decorators everywhere and you need to call each section of the code to get full coverage, meaning 100% test coverage. At that point just use rust, or am I missing something?

[Buttons840]

It looks like you call a function near the beginning of your Python program / application that does all the type checking at startup time. IDK for sure, I haven't used the library.

Someone using Python doesn't "just use Rust", there are very clear pros and cons and people already using Python are doing so for a reason. It is sometimes helpful to have type checks in Python though.

[HenriTEL]

From the doc it does not seem to be the case.

> Use beartype to assure the quality of Python code beyond what tests alone can assure. If you have yet to test, do that first with a pytest-based test suite, tox configuration, and continuous integration (CI). If you have any time, money, or motivation left, annotate callables and classes with PEP-compliant type hints and decorate those callables and classes with the @beartype.beartype decorator.

Don't get me wrong, I think static type checking is great. Now if you need to add a decorator on top of each class and function AND maintain 100% code coverage, well that does not sound like "zero-cost" to me. I can hardly think of a greater cost just to continue dynamically typing your code and maintain guarantees about external dependencies with no type hints.

[Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe]

Adding the decorator on top of every def takes max 5s in any good IDE so I really don't get why changing the language would be worth it.

And anyway beartype has a mechanism to run a hook once and it will automagically decorate all functions.