django-stubs VS nogil

Pyright doesn't work with Django, as Django's so dynamic that it requires a plugin to infer all types correctly. Sadly, even mypy with plugins is a mess to get set up in vscode, especially if you want it to use the same config as you use for ci checks from the command line.

We use mypy + [django-stubs](https://github.com/typeddjango/django-stubs) (in a huge Django + drf project at day job) which includes a plugin for mypy allowing it to recognize all reverse relations and manager methods. Mypy is still really rough around the edges. The cli args are poorly documented, and how they correspond to declarations in a mypy.ini / pyproject.toml is mysterious. Match-statements still have bugs even a year after release. Exclusion of untyped / partially typed files and packages we've had to solve with grep filtering mypy's output for our whitelisted set of files, as it's been unable to separate properly between errors you care about (in your own codebase) and errors in others code (dependencies, untypable dynamic python packages etc).

The largest issue IMO is that mypy tried to adapt a java / OOP style way of type system onto python, instead of recognizing the language's real power within duck typing and passing structural types around. Typescript chose the right approach here, modelling javascript the way it is actually written, favoring structural over nominal typing, instead of the archaic and now left-behind way of Java-style OOP that has influenced mypy.

There was a recently accepted PEP which allowed for limited dataclass transforms, enough to cover the @attr.s usecase for both mypy and pyright, but nowhere near expressive enough to cover django's models and ORM sadly. It's probably impossible / undesirable to allow for such rich plugins, so i see the future for proper pluginless typing to be more akin to how pydantic / normal dataclasses solve typing, by starting with a specification of the types, deriving its runtime implementation, instead of plugins having to reverse the type representation of a custom DSL.

You can annotate the manager and get some typing help in the editor. And there’s django-stubs which helps a little when running mypy. It’s not as good as pycharm though.

https://github.com/typeddjango/django-stubs/tree/master

> Yes, there are type stubs for these libraries but they’re either forced to be more strict, preventing use of dynamism, or opt for being less strict but allowing you to use all the library features, at the cost of safety.

There are type stubs for Django that somewhat avoid these compromises: https://github.com/typeddjango/django-stubs

To be able to do this they have to use a Mypy plugin though. And even then it's still far from perfect.

Mypy together with this plug-in gives you typing for django. https://github.com/TypedDjango/django-stubs

Have you looked at stubs for Django?

This might be a dumb question, but why would removing the GIL break FFI? Is it just that existing no-GIL implementations/proposals have discarded/ignored it, or is there a fundamental requirement, e.g. C programs unavoidably interact directly with the GIL? I know that the C-API is only stable between minor releases [0] compiled in the same manner [1], so it's not like the ecosystem is dependent upon it never changing.

I cannot seem to find much discussion about this. I have found a no-GIL interpreter that works with numpy, scikit, etc. [2][3] so it doesn't seem to be a hard limit. (That said, it was not stated if that particular no-GIL implementation requires specially built versions of C-API libs or if it's a drop-in replacement.)

[0]: https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/stable.html#c-api-stability

[1]: https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/stable.html#platform-conside...

[2]: https://github.com/colesbury/nogil

[3]: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-703-making-the-global-inter...

https://github.com/colesbury/nogil does manage to get rid of the GIL, but it's not certain to make it into Python core. The main problem is the amount of existing libraries that depend on the existence of the GIL without realizing it - breaking those would be extremely disruptive.

CPython is also investigating the removal of the GIL (PEP703, nogil). I think requiring the GIL is a wider thing that libraries will need to address anyway. But also, for the same reason as above I'd be surprised if the Modular team thought that saying "you can run all your python code unchanged" was a good idea if there was a secret "except for code that uses numpy" muttered under the breath.

I'm worried about the speedup

My understanding is that it's based on the most recent attempt to remove the GIL by Sam Gross

https://github.com/colesbury/nogil

In addition to some ways to try to not have nogil have as much overhead he added a lot of unrelated speed improvements so that python without the gil would still be faster not slower in single thread mode. They seem to have merged those performance patches first that means if they add his Gil removal patches in say python 3.12 it will still be substantially slower then 3.11 although faster then 3.10. I hope that doesn't stop them from removing the gil (at least by default)

Looks like it's still active to me:

https://github.com/colesbury/nogil/