Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #67649

Re: Functional programming

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 05:37:27 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> x = 23 # Compiler goes: Okay, x takes ints. x += 5 # Compiler: No prob,
>> int += int --> int x = str(x) # Compiler: NO WAY! str(int) --> str, not
>> allowed!
>>
>> It's fine and correct to infer that x is an int, x is an int, x is a
>> str. It's *not* okay to make the third line a SyntaxError because you
>> just put a str into an int variable.
>
> It won't be a Syntax Error, it will be a compile-time Type Error. And,
> yes, it is fine. That's the point of static typing! The tradeoff of being
> able to detect a whole lot of errors *at compile time* is that you give
> up the ability to re-use the same variable for different types in a
> single scope. (You can have an x which is a string elsewhere, just not in
> this scope where it is an int.)

Okay, a compile-type type error, same difference. What I'm saying is
that the auto-detection can't know what else you plan to do. If you
explicitly say that this is an int, then yes, that should be
disallowed; if you explicitly say that it's either an int or a float,
then you should be able to have either, but not a string. (C does this
with explicitly tagged unions, usually. Python and Pike do it by
simply allowing multiple types in the same slot.)

> That Haskell has homogeneous lists is not a property of the type system,
> but a design choice. I'm sure Haskell will also have a tuple or record
> type that allows fields of different types.

If it's not the list type, pick some other. It's not uncommon to want
to have a record that has different types (C does this with struct,
C++ has a few more ways to do it); what I'm finding odd is that
whatever goes into it first is specifying for everything else.

> I have not used Haskell enough to tell you whether you can specify
> subtypes. I know that, at least for numeric (integer) types, venerable
> old Pascal allows you to define subtypes based on integer ranges, so I'd
> be surprised if you couldn't do the same thing in Haskell.
>
> The flexibility of the type system -- its ability to create subtypes and
> union types -- is independent of whether it is explicitly declared or
> uses type inference.

I'm not sure how you could have type inference with subtypes. How does
the compiler figure out what subtype of integers is acceptable, such
that it can reject some?

x = 5
x = 7
x = 11
x = 17
x = 27

Should the last one be rejected because it's not prime? How can it
know that I actually wanted that to be int(3..20)? That's why I see
them as connected. All sorts of flexibilities are possible when the
programmer explicitly tells the compiler what the rules are.

> Hey, I'm a Python programmer! You don't have to sell me on the benefits
> of dynamic typing. Before Python, my language of choice was Apple's
> Hyperscript, which is untyped -- everything, and I mean everything, is a
> string in Hyperscript. It works remarkably well, so long as you don't
> care about speed. But even in the late 80s or early 1990s, on single-core
> CPUs running at a piddly 7.8 MHz (compared to about 1000 MHz for desktops
> today), you could get acceptable performance for a remarkable range of
> applications.
>
> But don't be fooled, those benefits aren't free. Static typing has
> benefits too.

For me, that untyped language was REXX. One data type (the string),
and a special feature of variable names to handle what most people
would do with arrays/lists/mappings/dicts/etc/etc/etc. (Or, of course,
you do what you'd presumably do in Hyperscript, and implement an array
of words as a string that you separate on ' '. VX-REXX had a neat
'initializer format' where you simply prefix every element with the
separator - that is to say, the first character of the string is the
separator. It nests perfectly and is pretty convenient to type. A
little obscure for most people, though.) Was also my first taste of
arbitrary-precision arithmetic. C could cream it as long as I didn't
need anything over 2**32 or anything I can't do in a double-precision
float, but I could calculate 200! with clean brute-force code and it'd
work perfectly.

Static and dynamic typing both have their uses. But when I use static
typing, I want to specify the types myself. I'm aware that's a matter
of opinion, but I don't like the idea of the compiler rejecting code
based on inferred types.

ChrisA

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Functional programming Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2014-03-02 20:27 -0500
  Re: Functional programming Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 03:45 -0800
    Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 23:20 +1100
      Re: Functional programming Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 05:48 -0800
        Re: Functional programming Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 05:51 -0800
        Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-04 01:00 +1100
          Re: Functional programming Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 06:08 -0800
            Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-04 01:23 +1100
              Re: Functional programming Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 06:38 -0800
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-04 02:01 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 07:28 -0800
                Re: Functional programming Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-03 17:27 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-04 05:37 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-04 05:35 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 21:59 -0800
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-04 17:04 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 22:20 -0800
                Re: Functional programming Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-04 08:56 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-03-04 11:56 +0100
                Re: Functional programming Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-04 11:47 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 00:01 +1100
                OT Sine Rule [was Re: Functional programming] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-04 14:25 +0000
                Re: OT Sine Rule [was Re: Functional programming] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2014-03-04 08:37 -0600
                Re: OT Sine Rule [was Re: Functional programming] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-04 14:42 +0000
                Re: OT Sine Rule [was Re: Functional programming] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 02:06 +1100
                Re: OT Sine Rule [was Re: Functional programming] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2014-03-04 09:21 -0600
                Re: Functional programming Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-03-05 09:59 +0100
                Re: Functional programming Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-04 21:49 +0200
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 07:01 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-04 22:50 +0200
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 08:06 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-04 23:21 +0200
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 08:26 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-04 23:43 +0200
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 08:52 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-03-05 12:57 +1300
                Re: Functional programming Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-05 02:11 +0200
                Re: Functional programming "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-03-04 13:30 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 00:47 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-04 14:05 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-04 14:55 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 02:13 +1100
                Re: Functional programming MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2014-03-04 17:07 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 01:17 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-04 15:18 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 02:28 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-04 15:45 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 03:04 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-03-05 10:09 +0100
                Re: Functional programming "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-03-05 11:28 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 23:04 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-05 14:11 +0200
                Re: Functional programming Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-03-04 11:06 +1300
                Re: Functional programming Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-03-04 09:31 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-03-04 14:59 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-04 15:22 +0000
                Re: Functional programming Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-04 09:42 +1100
                Re: Functional programming Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-03-04 10:52 +1100
                Re: Functional programming "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-03-04 09:41 +0000
            Re: Functional programming 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 16:35 -0800

csiph-web