I was extremely skeptical when typing was introduced. What's the point if runtime ignores them. I forced myself to use them as documentation and now I'm on the other side of the spectrum, all code should have them. It already helped me a lot during refactors and I always wished more code had types. I think the same is true for AIs, they will benefit from having the types explicitly said. It's a shame they currently default to untyped Python.
> What's the point if runtime ignores them.
I've been using this sparingly: https://pypi.org/project/type-enforced/
> What's the point if runtime ignores them.
Ideally, with static checking, the runtime shouldnn’t need to care about types because cide that typechecks shouldn’t be capable of not behaving according to the types declared.
Python, even with the most restrictive settings in nost typecheckers, may not quite achieve that, but it certainly reeuces the chance of surprises lf that kind compared to typing information in docstrings, or just locked away in the unststed assumptions of some developer.
The thing is, when typing was being discussed, I was hoping it would lead to JavaScript-like evolution, where the dynamic nature of Python could be restricted if I use the right types, and a JIT compiler could optimize parts of the code, expecting u32 ints instead of PyObjects.