I started programming in Rust several years ago, and it has gradually changed the way I design programs in other programming languages, most notably in Python. Before I started using Rust, I was usually writing Python code in a very dynamic and type-loose way, without type hints, passing and returning dictionaries everywhere, and occasionally falling back to “stringly-typed” interfaces. However, after experiencing the strictness of the Rust type system, and noticing all the problems that it prevents “by construction”, I suddenly became quite anxious whenever I got back to Python and wasn’t provided with the same guarantees.

One of my fav Python writeups. I love Python and luckily I get to dictate how it’s being written in my job, so I’m forcing types down the through of my colleagues. Saved a bunch of debugging time, so I can waste more time on Lemmy while still getting paid. Good shit

    • im_orange@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Oh my gosh… This project and its readme are amazing. I gotta try this at work tomorrow, I hope my co-workers can bear with me.

      Edit: I just found the release notes… I love it

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      2·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for this. I might start to use this. This would allow me to add typing class or function at a time and slowly work my way back.

  • xurxia@mander.xyz
    4·
    1 year ago

    I fully agree with the post. Except for a fast prototyping or a short personal script where it could be not necessary, type hint is a must. The subject is not only to guarantee that the program now runs without errors, but it will be still working right in the future too, even after a developer (either the original or other) make changes to the code.

  • vzq@lemmy.world
    52·
    1 year ago

    My main issue is that you’re going through all that trouble and still get Python-level performance.

    I really like Python, but there are better typed languages out there. Also, faster ones.

    • mwguy@infosec.pubEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      How true is that still? I know python 3.2/3.4/3.6 there were significant performance issues on simple pieces of code. But python 3.9/3.11 have been significantly faster. I imagine I could write faster C++ code, but I definitely couldn’t write it nearly as fast or nearly as readable.

      • vzq@lemmy.world
        11·
        1 year ago

        Python has gotten faster, but it’s still nowhere near what you expect from traditional compiled languages. It can’t be.
        The trick to writing performant Python code is to get good (native) libraries and let it handle the heavy lifting.

        For performance sensitive stuff, the fact that pure Python is very slow really matters. For stuff that’s not performance sensitive (that is, 99% of the code out there) it doesn’t really matter, but even then it’s better to be fast than to be slow.

        Now this is not something I would ordinarily have a problem with. I use Python for a reason and it’s not performance. But if I end up writing Python like it’s rust, I might as well do rust and reap the (massive!!!) performance and memory profile benefits too while I’m at it.

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          1·
          1 year ago

          Python3.10 was ~27x slower than Compiled C++ in this benchmark. Python 3.11 dropped that down to 17x just out of the box. Additionally, you can always write a python module in C or C++ to get the benefits of compilation. With the maintainability and flexibility of python.

    • Lmaydev@programming.dev
      33·
      1 year ago

      Yeah using a dynamically typed language and trying to force strong/static typing seems like a waste of effort.

      There are plenty around.