kirurik (u/kirurik) - Readit News

zelphirkalt · 4 days ago

A good compromise can be for example: Have your type annotations in the head of the procedure you are writing. That includes types of arguments and return type. You write it once at the head, and when you need to know you can look it up there, but you don't need to clutter the whole rest of the code. If you write well composing functions, then this will be all you ever need. If you write procedures 300 LoC, then well ... you shot yourself in the foot.

kirurik · 2 days ago

There definitely is an element of shooting oneself in ones own foot, but sometimes it seems unavoidable to me, or the effort just isn't worth it e.g. if I am using sklearn or numpy and the return types are ambiguous, then I'd have to overload each function at the head of the file or wrap it although it is clear what it does. What do you think? I think that if it's only my own code, then yes this is certainly avoidable with good composing functions.

zelphirkalt · 4 days ago

I feel similar about "weight" in Python. Some people can really overdo it with the type annotations, wanting to annotate every little variable inside any procedure, even if as a human it is quite easy to infer its type and for the type checker the type is already clear. It adds so much clutter and at the end of the day I think: "Why aren't you just writing Java instead?" and that's probably where that notion originates from.

I used to be like that. When I did Java. I used to think to myself: "Oh neat! Everything has its place. interfaces, abstract classes, classes, methods, anonymous classes, ... everything fits neatly together."

That was before I learned more Python and realized: "Hey wait a moment, things that require me to write elaborate classes in Java are just a little bit of syntax in Python. For example decorators!" And slowly switched to Python.

Now it seems many Java-ers have come to Python, but without changing their mindset. Collectively they make it harder to enjoy using Python, because at workspaces they will mandate the most extreme views towards type annotations, turning Python into a Java dialect in some regards. But without the speed of Java. I have had feedback for a take-home assignment from an application process, where someone in all seriousness complained about me not using type annotations for what amounted to a single page of code(, and for using explanatory comments, when I was not given any guarantees of being able to talk with someone about the code - lol, the audacity).

Part of the problem is how people learn programming. Many people learn it at university, by using Java, and now think everything must work like Java. I mean, Java is honest about types, but it can also be annoying. Has gotten better though. But that message has not arrived yet at what I call the "Java-er mindset" when it comes to writing type annotations. In general languages or their type checkers have become quite good at inferring types.

kirurik · 4 days ago

I am not an experienced programmer, but I liked python because of the dynamic typing, but tbh no type hints are a nightmare (as I used to use python). These days I gravitate towards using type hints unless I am using an ipynb because it looks clean, but it can be a little much, it can look quite ugly. Not every usecase needs type hints is what I've learned.