|
Is what I want for Christmas.
I'm losing my mind dealing with the lack of types. Maybe if devs documented things? Maybe?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Python
Here it is! Enjoy!
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, no: it's a <strong> move 
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose this is the price you have to pay for using a script language, good at prototyping, in actual projects.
Then, if you need other people code things tend to go worse and worse.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
I always think that is part of its attraction. A variable named i can be an integer one minute, and an object, or anything else, the next.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, yes, but could it be the square root of -1?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like this is as close as you can get:
How to Make Python Statically Typed — The Essential Guide[^]
Looks like an opportunity for someone to create a Python equivalent to TypeScript. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
You expect much from a language named after a comedy troop.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
I just wouldn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, so much for the typeless mantra "if talks like a duck and walks like a duck and speaks like a duck, then it's a duck."
And you point out why type is so important. It's not such a big issue to have a typeless system when you're the only one writing the code. It becomes a HUGE deal when having to work with other people's code.
For that reason, I couldn't stand Ruby and the code base I was trying to contribute to.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: "if talks like a duck and walks like a duck and speaks like a duck, then it's a duck."
Such languages completely ignore the "like a duck" part of the mantra.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Elon is shutting down Twitter because he is afraid of some disgruntled employee sabotaging it isn't he effectively acting as the disgruntled saboteur he's worried about? 
It just keeps getting better. I mean, I feel bad for the employees, but everyone keeps saying how smart this guy is. I just don't see it. He's probably not entirely stupid in every situation, but he's no genius either.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
The more I've studied, the more convinced I've become that we've allowed our bullies to lead us.
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, meet the new boss, same as the old boss, right?
It's kind of how we've always done things.
Although what I think is different, at least in my life time, is the aristocracy of wealth.
They didn't have that in the US in the 1950s.
Heck, up through the 1970s a single earner household could eke out a middle class existence, with children!
Well, we all know what happened to that.
Worker productivity has increased every year since then, and the wealthy are the only ones who have gained from it, according to the data.
So it doesn't really surprise me that we've approached a new gilded age.
What was kind of surprising is the rise of people with more money than sense. It seems since we've given the aristocracy the keys to the kingdom, they'll let any old billionaire run things.
And I think that's what they're seeing.
Hi Elon. Look what the cat dragged in.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Heck, up through the 1970s a single earner household could eke out a middle class existence, with children!
I am not that old and I can still remember that as a child, so I would say up to mid or end 80s
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, at least in the US, I am sure you are either misremembering, or your earner had a better job than most.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Frankly, at least in the US, I am sure you are either misremembering, or your earner had a better job than most.
Agreed. I've seen graphs that show just that, and the curve simply stops its upwards trend in the 70s. And not just one, but from many discussions on this topic. I have no problem sticking by that claim.
What one remembers is entirely irrelevant, especially when you trace back to before even being alive.
|
|
|
|
|
Most of those curves end their upward climb when Nixon dropped the gold standard and fiat currency became all the rage. That and the huge growth of government and regulation.
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
The graphs typically start diverging at 1979, and that's right around when Reagan took office, just after Carter.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Err... no.
Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981. So 1979 was square in the middle of Carter's reign of terror.
|
|
|
|
|
I said around the time. I was approximating. Besides, either way nothing Reagan did was enacted at that point.
However, he did continue the neoliberal economic policies of the time. And so did Clinton and Bush.
Anyway, it certainly had nothing to do with gold standard or regulations.
A common myth dreamt up by people with too much money, when the reality is that regulations and progressive taxation is precisely what Adam Smith prescribed in The Wealth of Nations to prevent the kind of wealth concentration we see today.
The matter was settled a long time ago. The rest is just chin music.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
