Yes, but why they did not write it in a compiled language? Pyright is pretty slow in large code bases and takes a lot of RAM. Javascript can be faster than python in some cases, but Python is so easily extendable with C,C++, Cython, Rust. They could use Python with one of the compiled language.
It's also horrible for fasle positives unless your project happens to be the exact same setup as the maintainers' - I had to turn off the actual type checking on it. I've since moved wholesale to the Ty alpha and it feels a hell of a lot smarter.
Sometimes dynamic Python idioms are incompatible with typed Python. I personally think that's fine, since I consider static typing a significant improvement overall.
This isn’t. They actually fixed that bug. Then they changed their minds and backed the fix back out again because they don’t think you should write Python that way:
> I think EAFP is a very unfortunate and ill-advised practice.
if "baz" in bar and "qux" in bar["baz"]:
foo = bar["baz"]["qux"]
...
else:
...
If this were a linter then I would accept that it is going to be opinionated. But this is not a linter, it’s a type checker. Their opinions about EAFP are irrelevant. That’s idiomatic Python.
Well I agree with them. The second code is clearly better. Exceptions should be used for error handling and if those keys are actually optional then you should explicitly check if they exist (or use something like `bar.get("baz")`).
You are welcome to that opinion, but type checkers should not be opinionated, especially if they push people to write non-idiomatic Python. If you think this should be written a different way, that’s what lint rules are for.
I'm sorry, I can't take seriously any piece of software which decided to prefix the previous version's name with "based". I'm aware this is a me problem.
Hah. I love the name. It implies that whatever the original “pyright” was doing wasn’t keepin’ it real. This new version, it’s “based” so it must be somehow more “real” and “grounded” and “legit”.
All I know is it is much more strict about stuff than pylance was.
You still have to write the resolver for graphql. I've seen. N+1 with graphql if you don't actually use data loader+batch pattern OR if you use it incorrectly.
Corporations are picking the side that's in power. If team blue is in power they would pick blue. Corporations are (usually) not moral or inherently politically motivated other than to the extent of optimizing short term shareholder value.
You are being reflexively downvoted, but I am not certain as to why. The assessment strikes me as accurate. Few corps I worked for were willing to go on a limb 'for a cause'. The exceptions were smaller companies where owner had a much bigger say and could effectively align goals with their beliefs.
Re the overnight that's why some providers are offering there are batch tier jobs that are 50% off which return over up to 12 or 24 hours for non-interactive use cases.
They can lock in by subsidizing the price of you use their tool, while making the default price larger for wrappers. This can draw people from the wrapper that can support multiple models to the specific CLI that supports the proprietary model.
Anthropic or Google offering a product and having margins they leverage is not "lock in" when there are dozens of alternatives at many various price points, including ones that can be run entirely locally (at high capex cost). It's like market fact #0 that, today, there is very little moat here other than capital, which is why OpenAI has now got multiple viable competitors despite their head start. Their APIs get copied, their tools get copied, the only way they remain competitive is with huge investments back into the core product to retain their leads. This is just what a competitive market looks like right now, and these offerings exist exactly because of downward pressure from other forces. The goal is of course to squeeze other players as much as possible, but these products have not yet proven to be sticky enough for their mere existence to do that. And there are many other players who have a lot of incentive to keep that downward pressure applied.
What you're describing is really just called "Offering a product for sale" and yes typically the people doing it will do, say, and offer things that encourage using their product over the competitors. That isn't "lock in" in any sense of the word. What are they supposed to do? Say "Our shit sucks and isn't price effective compared to others and we bring nothing to the table?" while giving you stuff for free?
At present, the tools are effectively the same. Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, Google Gemini, etc. are basically the same CLI tools. Every so often one will introduce a new feature (e.g. MCP support), but it’s not long before the others also include it. It is easy to swap between them (and Aider) and on tasks where I want a “second opinion”, I do.
Even if they make their tooling cheaper, that’s not going to lock me in. It has to be the best model or have some killer feature. Which, again, could be usurped the next day with the rate these tools are advancing.
