Skip to main content

Duck typing considered harmful.

I've had a chance to work on a fairly large chunk of Python at this point and have decided that Python (like Perl) is completely untenable at scale.  <rant><rave><drool>  but wait!  I have reasons!

Programmers spend most of their time reading code.  We read massive amounts of code.  After we read massive amounts of code we write one... or change one... To make a change to a piece of code you first have to understand what it does and how it interacts with the system around it.  Then we start reading massive amounts of code again.  Anything you can do to minimize the amount of code a programmer has to understand to make a change becomes a huge gain in productivity.

Duck typing causes the amount of code you need to read to make a change to grow very large.
For example lets look at two functions, one in C++ and one in Python.

First in C++
int function(type1 arg1, type2 arg2) {
  return arg1->method(arg2);
}


In this function we know that it takes two types, type1 and type2.  We also know that type1 has a function called 'method' which takes an argument of type2.  If we need to understand this function we go to type1 and read the code.  If 'method' is virtual then we also read any class which inherits from type1.  Now lets look at an equivalent Python function.


Now in Python
def function(arg1, arg2):
  return arg1.method(arg2)


In this case the function takes any class which has a function called 'method'.  To understand this function you have to read the entire codebase to find classes which have a 'method' function or find every invocation of this function and determine the types used there (non trivial).  Even worse a class might not have 'method' but could gain it later.  To understand this function you really have to read everything.


This isn't a problem when dealing with hundreds of lines of code but when dealing with tens of thousands it becomes extremely time consuming.

Comments

  1. Completely agree with you. We have a large codebase dating back to 2013 and it's getting to be nearly impossible to know where things will be coming from when we call them.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sieve of Eratosthenes

Another way to generate a list of primes is through the Sieve of Eratosthenes . Essentially you create a long list of numbers starting at 2. 1. Set p equal to 2.  This is your first prime. 2. Cross out every pth number because they are all divisible by p. 3. The first number after p which hasn't been crossed out is the new prime. 4. Repeat from setup 2. As an example lets take the number line from 2 to 10. list = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 1. p = 2 2. list = 2 , 3, 4 , 5, 6 , 7, 8 , 9, 10 3. p = 3 4. goto 2 2. list = 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 , 7, 8 , 9 , 10 3. p = 5 4. goto 2 2. list = 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 , 7, 8 , 9 , 10 3. p = 7

Our first list.

For our list of primes we need a list (naturally).  The best way to understand data structures is to implement them in a low level language.  Since I don't feel like inflicting ASM on everyone (although I do like assembler) we will use the next best thing.  C Out list needs a data element (the found prime) and a pointer to the next element. In C that looks like this. struct prime_elem_s {   uint64_t prime;   struct prime_elem_s *next; }; typedef struct prime_elem_s prime_elem_t; We define a structure containing the current prime and a pointer to the next element.  Then we define a type prime_elem_t to refer to that structure. In this case we want to add elements to the end of the list so we will also need a tail pointer.  We will create a list header which will keep a head and tail pointer as well as the number of elements in the list. typedef struct {   uint64_t length;   prime_elem_t *head;   prime_elem_t *tail; } pri...