Re: [libre-riscv-dev] why developers love rust on stackoverflow blog

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net>]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:06 PM Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<lkcl@lkcl.net> wrote:

> rust, i get it: there's a strong reliance on the compiler, and on the
> definition of types, in ways that have not been done in other
> langugages.

which has me thinking: is there any way that we could improve things
for python... however _without_ interfering with the code-compactness,
readability and speed of initial development?

one thing i noticed with python type-checking: i found it to be an
absolute nuisance - a hindrance far greater than its value.

the increased function definitions and type definitions frequently
require functions to be expanded from a single horizontal line into a
vertical multi-line definition, running the definition off the page.

the typechecking itself often means that using the Liskov Substitution
Principle is interfered with, because the initial declaration of the
types no longer fit the use to which the over-rides are put.

of course, that *is* the whole point of having the type-checking: to
ensure that the types of base classes and LSP *are* declared!

so i have no clue, here.

l.

_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev