← Back to context

Comment by phailhaus

11 hours ago

> I can’t hold that against the type system.

I think we should. Dataclasses have existed in Python for an extremely long time, and yet the type system doesn't support defining your own similar classes. Kwargs have also existed forever, but they forgot to support that and had to add TypedDict's much later. And it still doesn't properly support optional fields. There's a lot of stuff like this in the language which are unbelievably frustrating, because for some reason they implemented the syntax before implementing a typechecker. Everything has been hacked in ever since. I consider python's type system to be a lost cause, just hoping for someone to make the Typescript equivalent for Python.

Dataclasses support optional fields and kwargs perfectly. Not sure what you are talking about.

I don't think you understand what Pydantic brings to the table or why people use it. It has lots more to do with serialization, complex validation and data mapping.