[bb88]

Python showed what relaxed types could do. And we could go a long way as it turns out without types. But there are use cases for types, and even python admitted such when they added type annotations.

However, when I was a kid a would put a firecracker next to an object. I didn't bother running the scenario through a compiler to see if the object was of type Explodable() and had an explode() method that would be called.

[saghm]

> However, when I was a kid a would put a firecracker next to an object. I didn't bother running the scenario through a compiler to see if the object was of type Explodable() and had an explode() method that would be called.

Duck typing: if it quacks like a duck, and it explodes objects next to it, it's a firequacker

[cjfd]

Duck typing. If it quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it might be a duck. But it might also be a nuclear submarine doing a duck impersonation. The question is whether you want a nuclear submarine in your pond.

[marcosdumay]

The philosophy of duck typing is very clear in that yes, you should accept a nuclear submarine in your pound.

The problems are that you won't remember to do the same exact checks everywhere and document them.

[stuartaxelowen]

Python showed that you can be wrong about your types and still build a successful product.

[yakshaving_jgt]

Unless your product is a Boeing 737 MAX.