Have to add that we work exclusively in strongly-typed languages. Kinda want to see how it plays out, but I can’t help but argue with him, so I think I’ll just go.
Have to add that we work exclusively in strongly-typed languages. Kinda want to see how it plays out, but I can’t help but argue with him, so I think I’ll just go.
Python is dynamically strong typed, meaning you don’t need to specify any types, but unlike JavaScript you can’t just use a string where an int was expected. In that sense it’s absolutely runtime enforced typing.
… and yet… it lacks clear and enforced type restrictions which help with clear code contracts. It’s certainly better than Javascript but the lack of runtime enforced type checking can force defensive programming in an unnecessary manner.
Your statement isn’t strict type checking. It’s a restricted form of type coercion. Given how common this feature is in other languages it’s weird that pythonistas feel so defensive when discussing the feature. I enjoy strict type checking, but that’s my opinion - it makes it a poor choice for the sorts of projects I work on but if it’s good for you then enjoy!