[curiousgal]

I can't help but find type hints in python to be..goofy? I have a colleague who has a substantial C++ background and now working in python, the code is just littered with TypeAlias, Generic, cast, long Unions etc.. this can't be the way..

[tialaramex]

Typing is a relatively easy way for the human author and the machine to notice if they disagree about what's going on before problems arise. It is unfortunate that Python doesn't do a good job with types, I was reading earlier today about the mess they made of booleans - their bool type is actually just the integers again.

[nubg]

> I was reading earlier today about the mess they made of booleans

Can you elaborate on that?

[tech2]

It's not entirely fair.

Prior to 2.3 Python didn't have booleans, just "truthiness". In 2.3 they added the Boolean class as a subclass of int (because of patterns of development it was a pragmatic choice). True and False were introduced, but they were able to be reassigned which could cause all manner of fun. 3.x made them keywords which put a stop to that but the int aspect remained.

[IshKebab]

He did - booleans are integers:

  >>> isinstance(False, int)
  True

A related screw-up is implicitly casting everything to bool. A lot of languages made that mistake.

Overall I'd say they didn't do an awful job though. The main problems with Python are the absolutely abysmal tooling (which thankfully uv fixes), the abysmal performance (which sometimes isn't an issue, but it usually becomes an issue eventually), and the community's attitude to type checking.

Actually type checking code you've written yourself with Pyright in strict mode is quite a pleasant experience. But woe betide you if you want to import any third party libraries. There's at least a 50% chance they have no type annotations at all, and often it's deliberate. Typescript used to have a similar problem but the Javascript community realised a lot quicker than the Python community that type hints are a no-brainer.

[tialaramex]

Because Python decided that (for the usual New Jersey reason, simplicity of implementation) bool should just be an integer type the Liskov criterion comes into play. If we can X an integer and we've agreed bool is an integer => we can X a bool. That's not what booleans are but hey, it's sorta close and this was easier to implement.

So, can we add two bools together? Adding booleans together is nonsense, but we've said these are a kind of integer so sure, I guess True + True = 2 ? And this cascades into nonsense like ~True being a valid operation in Python and its result is true...

[unanimous]

Out of curiosity, I tried running `~True` in a Python 3.14.2 repl and got this output (the -2 is part of the output):

>>> ~True

<python-input-1>:1: DeprecationWarning: Bitwise inversion '~' on bool is deprecated and will be removed in Python 3.16. This returns the bitwise inversion of the underlying int object and is usually not what you expect from negating a bool. Use the 'not' operator for boolean negation or ~int(x) if you really want the bitwise inversion of the underlying int.

-2

[tialaramex]

Yes, the article I was reading was about proposals to er, undeprecate this feature. Reasoning that well, sure it's obviously a footgun - but it works for integers and we've said bools are integers so...

[__mharrison__]

This is actually useful in pandas. It enables asking questions like "what percent of cars get greater than 40mph?"

[jcgl]

> So, can we add two bools together? Adding booleans together is nonsense, but we've said these are a kind of integer so sure, I guess True + True = 2 ? And this cascades into nonsense like ~True being a valid operation in Python and its result is true...

The bitwise negation is indeed janky and inaccurate, but True + True = 2 is absolutely a valid thing to say in boolean algebra. Addition mean "or", and multiplication means "and."

[tialaramex]

> True + True = 2 is absolutely a valid thing to say in boolean algebra

Nope. The Boolean algebra only has two values, and it lacks the addition operation entirely.

[jcgl]

I always remember learning that 2 was a legit enough way to represent the result of 1 + 1, but the internet seems to agree with you mostly. Though I contend that 1 + 1 = 2 is unambiguous, so is fine.

But multiplication and addition do work just fine for boolean arithmetic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-element_Boolean_algebra

[maleldil]

> TypeAlias, Generic

This is mitigated by modern (3.12+) generic and `type` syntax, which just looks like any other static language.

[IshKebab]

I strongly disagree. Python has actually done a decent job of adding type annotations into the language IMO.

If you ignore the bit where they don't actually specify their semantics anyway.

> this can't be the way..

The alternative is fragile and unmaintainable code. I know which I prefer!

[b00ty4breakfast]

the alternative should be using a real statically-typed language instead of glorified comments that don't do anything without outside tools.

I understand that very large code bases have been built in python and this is a compromise to avoid making them rewrite Ks upon Ks of LoC but as it stands, Python type annotations are akin to putting a Phillip's head screwdriver on a ball peen hammer; the screwdriver is not a real screwdriver and the ergonomics of the hammer have been compromised.

[IshKebab]

Well yes I agree using Rust or whatever would be better, but if your options are Python or Python with type hints, then the latter gets you closest to proper static typing. They're really not that bad with Pyright in strict mode. Mypy is rubbish.

[wiseowise]

What is the way in your opinion?