lunacodes/notes

## notes
[NOTE: These are raw, I may have been getting a bit sick, there's probly errors or things I just didn't hear/get... if something seems Off, assume it's something I missed - not him]

Greg Price - works w/ Guido Van Rossum

Python has Static Types in Beta

Core Mypy team:
Jukka Lehtosdale - PhD research was the start of this
Guido vR
Greg
David Fisher
Reid Barton


Why Static Types:
    Understanding COde
        Dropbox Engineers spend 40% of their engineering time reading & trying to understand code (Dropbox survey, 2015)

        Computers too (navigate, refactor, find bugs)


Understanding Code
    What does this code do?
        for entry in entries:
            entrydata.validate()

        Want to read what Validate does now

        git grep "Def validate" -> 45 results
            This is actually true in Dropbox environment

        What's the type of entry.data
            Is it a parameter?  Grep for call sites
            Return Value? Find that Method
            Subclasses, duck typing**, generic containers (list, dict, etc)
                Are there related types or a base class?
            Undecidable in General

            Same issue of too multiple possibilities to sort through

            It's like a Search Tree where you hope to get everything right/clear

        WHat's the type of (some expression)?

        Lots of excuses, but:
            The author had some kind of answer or expectation of what the type should have been
                Did they think it could be anything?  List of anything?
                One could be a type T, one could be a list of things that are Type T

        Static type: the expectation the author had of the (runtime) type of an expression's value (note: there are other competing definitions in academia)
        Two principles that

        Explicit is better than implicit!!

            People do write helpful, explicit docstrings
            But the more a codebase has been modified over time, you can't trust these docstrings
                Issues of Mutability/Side effects as well

        Checked is better than unchecked

        PEP 484 - Static Typing in Python 2 & 3
            Use Explicit is better than Implicit
            Use
            Mypy typechecker

    Notation:
        Python 3: function annotations (PEP 3107)
            def gd(a: int, b: int) -> int

            Annotations are Python expressions
            Design Constraint affected notation
                Minimal Semantics, since the implementation hadn't been planned well
                Would alter the way you'd write lists(??)

        Python 2 & 3
        *** didn't get slides


    Parametric polymorphis
        generic containers:
            from typing import List, Dict, Set, Iterable
                def sum(a):
                    # type: (List[int]) ->
                    ...

                def topostsort(data):
                    #type (Dict[str, Set[str]]) -> Iterable[Set[str]]
                    ...

            from typing import TypeVar, Generic
            T = TypeVar('T')
            class MyList(Generic[T])
                '''T is bound to *this* Instance of the class.  Will not affect classes outside of this subclass.  T is not shared'''
                def append(self, item):
                    # type: (T) -> None
                    ...

            Note: Generic is an annotation not a type that affects how you write it out later (when you decide the type).  This makes sure that in this Intance the T's will all be the same type (meaning, you could have different subclasses of the Base class)

            The disadvantage to this notation is that you can't really indicate scope with multiple nested classes.

            The # declaration is used by the Type Checker


    Gradual Typing
        Typed code co-exists with untyped code
        Still want to type-check the typed code
        At the boundary: type Any
            Untyped Code will default to type any
            If this is being passed to typed code, good idea to explicitly annotate this in the tyed code

        Some aspects of Python are hard to write types for
            decorators that do reflection things
            meta something in class(*didn't here what he said*)

    Other people's code:
        Libraries you use may lack written types

        SOlution: write them down, in sperate files "stub files", extension .pyi
            Type checker is the only thing that will care about this

    Python Standard library "typeshed repo" - people are typing the STL


    See PEP 484 for Details on typing!!


Tools:
    Type-checker: Mypy
    http://github.com/python/mypy

    Think of it as break and build
    Designed for gradual adoption

    Run on just the files you've given types to:
        $ mypy --silent-imports file.py dir/
            Other modules all become Any
            This means the typechecker doesn't worry about them


Status at Dropbox:
    15 eager early adopters
    50,000 Lines of Code have explicit types

    People love it:
        100% agree "easier to read an dunderstand"
        100% "I am more productive"
        45% "adding to existing code is a lot of work"
            90% are glad to have done it
            They have ideas about how to reduce the amount of work it is

    "Refactors are already so much easier with the typings that's been added.  Game changing for the sync engine!"

    "This makes it sooo much easier for me to read code and figure out what parameters are supposed to be"

    Missed third


Maybe annotate your favorite Python Codebase
    Zulip.readthedocs.io/en/latest/mypy.html

Report any issues on Github
    They respond quickly
    There's a contributing file

Patches and code reviews are also welcome


Question:


    Facebook had issues with lots of PHP
        They had a project called Hack
        They added Types of their PHP
        THey mark files with "Everything here has to be typed"
        70-80% have types

        They used a tool to do Type Inference
            Straightforward Line to Line Inference (based on what's passed/called, etc)
            Would spit out guesses
            Human would then review it

        Mypy team will probably write a similar tool within a year


    Question:
        What's the likelihood of adoption?

    Answer:
        Dropbox adoption will help a lot
        It's up to each little team adopting it on their projects and being excited about adding types

        "What are the things we need to do to keep making it a better experience for early adopters and users"

        A lot of people already feel the pain of this

    QuestioN:
        How does this work with default arguments?

    Answer:
        Syntactically there's a way for combining it
            Something like x:=3

    Question:
        Small Code Base.  Is the static type checker stable?  We don't want to break code

    Answer:
        We have a pin for each time we run it.
        It's pretty reliable
        OCcasionally will break, but we review it periodically

    Question:
        Can you statically duck type?

    Answer:
        Iterable (in notes above) is a type of duck typing

        Iterable was designed prior to Mypy
            Uses Abstract Base Classes (specific Python thing)
            Puts methods on the objects
            Registers itself as a thing that is part of the other things

            You can define a new class as being an Iterable

        You have to explicitly say this somewhere in the class

    Question:
        Can you do outright duck typing?

    Answer:
        No.  You have to specify

    Question:
        T = TypeVar('T')  - why is it a string?

    Answer:
        Just so you have an easy way to print it in error messages in stuff

    Question:
        Can you reduce the resource load/runtime of Type inferrance?

    Answer:
        In the future

        Something about Pyston (Python JIT)
            JIT = Just In Time compiler
            Allows optimized compiling
                Essentially implements DRY in the context of compilation
                Part of why Python runs slowly is that nobody has yet built a good JIT in Python

        In a future where both of these have succeeded, they would gain performance enhancements from each other
        Jit wouldn't need

    Question:
        A lot of the time people write code that works dynamically (could be two different types)?  Something about classes

    Answer:
        Union[Any Kind] is how you do the dynamic version

        Instead of Int you'd just say whatever the class is

    Question:
        How do you implement this on args and kwargs

    Answer:
        If it's supposed to be a specific type, you just write down what that should be?

        If the kwargs are multiple generic types, we don't have a good way to write that down, and you'd use Any instead
            We are thinking about ways to implement this

    Question:
        Is there a way to just have a type def?

    Answer:
        A pure type def falls out for free from the fact that these are Python expressions
        If you have a complicated type, just give it a variable name and you've achieved this

    QUestion:
        How did the 'Generic' being set at the class level come to be?

    Answer:
        You might have a free-standing function (not method) that operates on a list and gives you the first two elements of a list

        You just write your Def and have a type variable there
        It's not explicitly bound

        If you have several methods, they may all use that Variable
            A given Instance of a class be some type of the the type
            You have to pass any of the instances the same kind of type

    Question:
        Dictionaries, if I have a specific type of key and specific type of value?

    Answer: see toposort func

    Question:
        Does it play well with hire ordered functions

    Answer:
        Yes, there's a type called Cobble(???)


    Question:
        Of the people who found it difficult, how much was because of refactoring?

    Answer:
        Most of it wasn't refactoring
        A lot of it was figuring out (or guessing) what type something was supposed to be


    Question:
        is it common for people to identify bugs as a result of doing that work

    Answer:
        It happens.  It isn't super common.

        I don't think we found any really terrible bugs this way

        One of the Hack People (Facebook) on Security & Privacy team told me they found a real howler/scary bug that they were glad to have fixed.

        More often it finds something very early/sooner

        The great bulk of the value is in future readability

    Question:
        Interesting Challenges?

    Answer:
        I'm very happy with the outcome at this point.
        Dropbox is paying 3 ppl full time (1 contractor) to work on building this system
            That too work and convincing to show people tjhat this already delivers value and is not just an isolated research project

        Technically
            Notating Aspects of Python that are hard to write a type down for (like * and **)

            Common Example
                Dicts you pass around
                Keys are all strings
                Dicts of strings

                You have a whole family that accept this.
                For different types of keys they expect different values

                This structure shouldn't really be here in the first place
                    Gnarly and Hard to understand
                    Having types first would make it easier to understand

                    We have thoughts and hopes to implement this in the future

                Currently:
                    Working on the concept of Optional
                        Whether something is *allowed* to be optional or not
                        This saves you from running into attribute errors due to multiple author misudnerstandings

                    PEP 484 specificies this being explicit
                        Mypy didn't orginally implement this, we're working on it

    Question:
        Are there similar things in dynamic langs that you wish you could have done

    Answer:
        Yes, implementing Optional

        Hack & TypeScript
            Hack Has it
            TypeScript does not
                People regret it
                But seems to be too difficult to add at this point


        It would be nice to have more control of the (Standard Python) syntax

    Questions:
        Humans are taking a lot of time to reason about code and you said they've been improved.  Machines take a lot of time as well.  Is it possible for PyCharm to use the parser in Mypy to enable something like this?

    Answer:
        We hope so, don't know about Python in particular

        It won't throw other systems off systems that use the standard AST b/c the anotation is in a # Comment

        We've created a variant of the AST Module that's as high performance as AST module, but also includes Type Comments
            Called TypesAST

    Question:
        Isn't the appeal of Python that it's dynamically typed?  How do we reconcile this?  Is some of the code I've seen where this makes sense not idiomatic to Python (ie you'd need to refactor it)?

    Answer:
        The things I and most of my colleagues value are compatible with adding typing

        People like dynamic typing:
            1.  It's concise.
                We're adding a small amount, but not really that much
                Unlike C/C++/Java you don't have to deal with the mess of those types
                This is more about Human Readability and security than enforced Types

                LISP & Java didn't have Generic Types for a while
                    This meant you couldn't easily use certain data structures

                You don't have to put this on all your code.  It's optional
            2.
	[NOTE: These are raw, I may have been getting a bit sick, there's probly errors or things I just didn't hear/get... if something seems Off, assume it's something I missed - not him]

	Greg Price - works w/ Guido Van Rossum

	Python has Static Types in Beta

	Core Mypy team:
	Jukka Lehtosdale - PhD research was the start of this
	Guido vR
	Greg
	David Fisher
	Reid Barton


	Why Static Types:
	Understanding COde
	Dropbox Engineers spend 40% of their engineering time reading & trying to understand code (Dropbox survey, 2015)

	Computers too (navigate, refactor, find bugs)


	Understanding Code
	What does this code do?
	for entry in entries:
	entrydata.validate()

	Want to read what Validate does now

	git grep "Def validate" -> 45 results
	This is actually true in Dropbox environment

	What's the type of entry.data
	Is it a parameter? Grep for call sites
	Return Value? Find that Method
	Subclasses, duck typing**, generic containers (list, dict, etc)
	Are there related types or a base class?
	Undecidable in General

	Same issue of too multiple possibilities to sort through

	It's like a Search Tree where you hope to get everything right/clear

	WHat's the type of (some expression)?

	Lots of excuses, but:
	The author had some kind of answer or expectation of what the type should have been
	Did they think it could be anything? List of anything?
	One could be a type T, one could be a list of things that are Type T

	Static type: the expectation the author had of the (runtime) type of an expression's value (note: there are other competing definitions in academia)
	Two principles that

	Explicit is better than implicit!!

	People do write helpful, explicit docstrings
	But the more a codebase has been modified over time, you can't trust these docstrings
	Issues of Mutability/Side effects as well

	Checked is better than unchecked

	PEP 484 - Static Typing in Python 2 & 3
	Use Explicit is better than Implicit
	Use
	Mypy typechecker

	Notation:
	Python 3: function annotations (PEP 3107)
	def gd(a: int, b: int) -> int

	Annotations are Python expressions
	Design Constraint affected notation
	Minimal Semantics, since the implementation hadn't been planned well
	Would alter the way you'd write lists(??)

	Python 2 & 3
	*** didn't get slides


	Parametric polymorphis
	generic containers:
	from typing import List, Dict, Set, Iterable
	def sum(a):
	# type: (List[int]) ->
	...

	def topostsort(data):
	#type (Dict[str, Set[str]]) -> Iterable[Set[str]]
	...

	from typing import TypeVar, Generic
	T = TypeVar('T')
	class MyList(Generic[T])
	'''T is bound to this Instance of the class. Will not affect classes outside of this subclass. T is not shared'''
	def append(self, item):
	# type: (T) -> None
	...

	Note: Generic is an annotation not a type that affects how you write it out later (when you decide the type). This makes sure that in this Intance the T's will all be the same type (meaning, you could have different subclasses of the Base class)

	The disadvantage to this notation is that you can't really indicate scope with multiple nested classes.

	The # declaration is used by the Type Checker


	Gradual Typing
	Typed code co-exists with untyped code
	Still want to type-check the typed code
	At the boundary: type Any
	Untyped Code will default to type any
	If this is being passed to typed code, good idea to explicitly annotate this in the tyed code

	Some aspects of Python are hard to write types for
	decorators that do reflection things
	meta something in class(didn't here what he said)

	Other people's code:
	Libraries you use may lack written types

	SOlution: write them down, in sperate files "stub files", extension .pyi
	Type checker is the only thing that will care about this

	Python Standard library "typeshed repo" - people are typing the STL


	See PEP 484 for Details on typing!!


	Tools:
	Type-checker: Mypy
	http://github.com/python/mypy

	Think of it as break and build
	Designed for gradual adoption

	Run on just the files you've given types to:
	$ mypy --silent-imports file.py dir/
	Other modules all become Any
	This means the typechecker doesn't worry about them


	Status at Dropbox:
	15 eager early adopters
	50,000 Lines of Code have explicit types

	People love it:
	100% agree "easier to read an dunderstand"
	100% "I am more productive"
	45% "adding to existing code is a lot of work"
	90% are glad to have done it
	They have ideas about how to reduce the amount of work it is

	"Refactors are already so much easier with the typings that's been added. Game changing for the sync engine!"

	"This makes it sooo much easier for me to read code and figure out what parameters are supposed to be"

	Missed third


	Maybe annotate your favorite Python Codebase
	Zulip.readthedocs.io/en/latest/mypy.html

	Report any issues on Github
	They respond quickly
	There's a contributing file

	Patches and code reviews are also welcome



	Question:


	Facebook had issues with lots of PHP
	They had a project called Hack
	They added Types of their PHP
	THey mark files with "Everything here has to be typed"
	70-80% have types

	They used a tool to do Type Inference
	Straightforward Line to Line Inference (based on what's passed/called, etc)
	Would spit out guesses
	Human would then review it

	Mypy team will probably write a similar tool within a year


	Question:
	What's the likelihood of adoption?

	Answer:
	Dropbox adoption will help a lot
	It's up to each little team adopting it on their projects and being excited about adding types

	"What are the things we need to do to keep making it a better experience for early adopters and users"

	A lot of people already feel the pain of this

	QuestioN:
	How does this work with default arguments?

	Answer:
	Syntactically there's a way for combining it
	Something like x:=3

	Question:
	Small Code Base. Is the static type checker stable? We don't want to break code

	Answer:
	We have a pin for each time we run it.
	It's pretty reliable
	OCcasionally will break, but we review it periodically

	Question:
	Can you statically duck type?

	Answer:
	Iterable (in notes above) is a type of duck typing

	Iterable was designed prior to Mypy
	Uses Abstract Base Classes (specific Python thing)
	Puts methods on the objects
	Registers itself as a thing that is part of the other things

	You can define a new class as being an Iterable

	You have to explicitly say this somewhere in the class

	Question:
	Can you do outright duck typing?

	Answer:
	No. You have to specify

	Question:
	T = TypeVar('T') - why is it a string?

	Answer:
	Just so you have an easy way to print it in error messages in stuff

	Question:
	Can you reduce the resource load/runtime of Type inferrance?

	Answer:
	In the future

	Something about Pyston (Python JIT)
	JIT = Just In Time compiler
	Allows optimized compiling
	Essentially implements DRY in the context of compilation
	Part of why Python runs slowly is that nobody has yet built a good JIT in Python

	In a future where both of these have succeeded, they would gain performance enhancements from each other
	Jit wouldn't need

	Question:
	A lot of the time people write code that works dynamically (could be two different types)? Something about classes

	Answer:
	Union[Any Kind] is how you do the dynamic version

	Instead of Int you'd just say whatever the class is

	Question:
	How do you implement this on args and kwargs

	Answer:
	If it's supposed to be a specific type, you just write down what that should be?

	If the kwargs are multiple generic types, we don't have a good way to write that down, and you'd use Any instead
	We are thinking about ways to implement this

	Question:
	Is there a way to just have a type def?

	Answer:
	A pure type def falls out for free from the fact that these are Python expressions
	If you have a complicated type, just give it a variable name and you've achieved this

	QUestion:
	How did the 'Generic' being set at the class level come to be?

	Answer:
	You might have a free-standing function (not method) that operates on a list and gives you the first two elements of a list

	You just write your Def and have a type variable there
	It's not explicitly bound

	If you have several methods, they may all use that Variable
	A given Instance of a class be some type of the the type
	You have to pass any of the instances the same kind of type

	Question:
	Dictionaries, if I have a specific type of key and specific type of value?

	Answer: see toposort func

	Question:
	Does it play well with hire ordered functions

	Answer:
	Yes, there's a type called Cobble(???)


	Question:
	Of the people who found it difficult, how much was because of refactoring?

	Answer:
	Most of it wasn't refactoring
	A lot of it was figuring out (or guessing) what type something was supposed to be


	Question:
	is it common for people to identify bugs as a result of doing that work

	Answer:
	It happens. It isn't super common.

	I don't think we found any really terrible bugs this way

	One of the Hack People (Facebook) on Security & Privacy team told me they found a real howler/scary bug that they were glad to have fixed.

	More often it finds something very early/sooner

	The great bulk of the value is in future readability

	Question:
	Interesting Challenges?

	Answer:
	I'm very happy with the outcome at this point.
	Dropbox is paying 3 ppl full time (1 contractor) to work on building this system
	That too work and convincing to show people tjhat this already delivers value and is not just an isolated research project

	Technically
	Notating Aspects of Python that are hard to write a type down for (like * and **)

	Common Example
	Dicts you pass around
	Keys are all strings
	Dicts of strings

	You have a whole family that accept this.
	For different types of keys they expect different values

	This structure shouldn't really be here in the first place
	Gnarly and Hard to understand
	Having types first would make it easier to understand

	We have thoughts and hopes to implement this in the future

	Currently:
	Working on the concept of Optional
	Whether something is allowed to be optional or not
	This saves you from running into attribute errors due to multiple author misudnerstandings

	PEP 484 specificies this being explicit
	Mypy didn't orginally implement this, we're working on it

	Question:
	Are there similar things in dynamic langs that you wish you could have done

	Answer:
	Yes, implementing Optional

	Hack & TypeScript
	Hack Has it
	TypeScript does not
	People regret it
	But seems to be too difficult to add at this point


	It would be nice to have more control of the (Standard Python) syntax

	Questions:
	Humans are taking a lot of time to reason about code and you said they've been improved. Machines take a lot of time as well. Is it possible for PyCharm to use the parser in Mypy to enable something like this?

	Answer:
	We hope so, don't know about Python in particular

	It won't throw other systems off systems that use the standard AST b/c the anotation is in a # Comment

	We've created a variant of the AST Module that's as high performance as AST module, but also includes Type Comments
	Called TypesAST

	Question:
	Isn't the appeal of Python that it's dynamically typed? How do we reconcile this? Is some of the code I've seen where this makes sense not idiomatic to Python (ie you'd need to refactor it)?

	Answer:
	The things I and most of my colleagues value are compatible with adding typing

	People like dynamic typing:
	1. It's concise.
	We're adding a small amount, but not really that much
	Unlike C/C++/Java you don't have to deal with the mess of those types
	This is more about Human Readability and security than enforced Types

	LISP & Java didn't have Generic Types for a while
	This meant you couldn't easily use certain data structures

	You don't have to put this on all your code. It's optional
	2.