returnn VS mypy

That looks very interesting.

I actually have developed (and am developing) sth very similar, what we call the RETURNN frontend, a new frontend + new backends for our RETURNN framework. The new frontend is supporting very similar Python code to define models as you see in PyTorch or Keras, i.e. a core Tensor class, a base Module class you can derive, a Parameter class, and then a core functional API to perform all the computations. That supports multiple backends, currently mostly TensorFlow (graph-based) and PyTorch, but JAX was something I also planned. Some details here: https://github.com/rwth-i6/returnn/issues/1120

(Note that we went a bit further ahead and made named dimensions a core principle of the framework.)

(Example beam search implementation: https://github.com/rwth-i6/i6_experiments/blob/14b66c4dc74c0...)

One difficulty I found was how design the API in a way that works well both for eager-mode frameworks (PyTorch, TF eager-mode) and graph-based frameworks (TF graph-mode, JAX). That mostly involves everything where there is some state, or sth code which should not just execute in the inner training loop but e.g. for initialization only, or after each epoch, or whatever. So for example:

- Parameter initialization.

- Anything involving buffers, e.g. batch normalization.

- Other custom training loops? Or e.g. an outer loop and an inner loop (e.g. like GAN training)?

- How to implement sth like weight normalization? In PyTorch, the module.param is renamed, and then there is a pre-forward hook, which on-the-fly calculates module.param for each call for forward. So, just following the same logic for both eager-mode and graph-mode?

- How to deal with control flow context, accessing values outside the loop which came from inside, etc. Those things are naturally possible eager-mode, where you would get the most recent value, and where there is no real control flow context.

- Device logic: Have device defined explicitly for each tensor (like PyTorch), or automatically eagerly move tensors to the GPU (like TensorFlow)? Moving from one device to another (or CPU) is automatic or must be explicit?

I see that you have keras_core.callbacks.LambdaCallback which is maybe similar, but can you effectively update the logic of the module in there?

> warnings of IDEs are simple to ignore

This is unusual. In my experience, of codebases I have worked with or have seen, when there are type hints, there are almost all perfectly correct.

Also, you can setup the CI to check also for IDE warnings. For example, we use this script for PyCharm: https://github.com/rwth-i6/returnn/blob/master/tests/pycharm...

The test for PyCharm inspections only passes when there are no warnings.

Although, I have to admit, we explicitly exclude type warnings because here we have a couple of false positives. So in this respect, it actually agrees with the article.

But then we also do code review and there we are strict about having it all correct.

Yes, I see the argument of the article that the typing in Python is not perfect and you can easily fool it if you want, so you cannot 100% trust the types. But given good standard practice, it will only rarely happen that the type is not as expected and typing helps a lot. And IDE type warnings, or mypy checks still are useful tools and catch bugs for you, just not maybe 100% of all typing bugs but still maybe 80% of them or so.

> Isn’t it better to detect at least some errors than to detect none at all?

I was trying to implement some new feature in some larger somewhat messy project (RETURNN but not so relevant).

So I created a new branch, also made a GitHub draft PR (here), and started working on it.

It's got type annotations and mypy has a discussion about it here as well: https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/1282

There is already an AOT compiler for Python: Nuitka[0]. But I don't think it's much faster.

And then there is mypyc[1] which uses mypy's static type annotations but is only slightly faster.

And various other compilers like Numba and Cython that work with specialized dialects of Python to achieve better results, but then it's not quite Python anymore.

[0] https://nuitka.net/

[1] https://github.com/python/mypy/tree/master/mypyc

In Python there is MyPy that can help with this. https://www.mypy-lang.org/

It's funny you should say this.

Reading this article prompted me to future-proof a program I maintain for fun that deals with time; it had one use of utcnow, which I fixed.

And then I tripped over a runtime type problem in an unrelated area of the code, despite the code being green under "mypy --strict". (and "100% coverage" from tests, except this particular exception only occured in a "# pragma: no-cover" codepath so it wasn't actually covered)

It turns out that because of some core decisions about how datetime objects work, `datetime.date.today() < datetime.datetime.now()` type-checks but gives a TypeError at runtime. Oops. (cause discussed at length in https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/9015 but without action for 3 years)

One solution is apparently to use `datetype` for type annotations (while continuing to use `datetime` objects at runtime): https://github.com/glyph/DateType

PEP 695 is great. I've been using mypy every day at work in last couple years or so with very strict parameters (no any type etc) and I have experience writing real life programs with Rust, Agda, and some Haskell before, so I'm familiar with strict type systems. I'm sure many will disagree with me but these are my very honest opinions as a professional who uses Python types every day:

* Some types are better than no types. I love Python types, and I consider them required. Even if they're not type-checked they're better than no types. If they're type-checked it's even better. If things are typed properly (no any etc) and type-checked that's even better. And so on...

* Having said this, Python's type system as checked by mypy feels like a toy type system. It's very easy to fool it, and you need to be careful so that type-checking actually fails badly formed programs.

* The biggest issue I face are exceptions. Community discussed this many times [1] [2] and the overall consensus is to not check exceptions. I personally disagree as if you have a Python program that's meticulously typed and type-checked exceptions still cause bad states and since Python code uses exceptions liberally, it's pretty easy to accidentally go to a bad state. E.g. in the linked github issue JukkaL (developer) claims checking things like "KeyError" will create too many false positives, I strongly disagree. If a function can realistically raise a "KeyError" the program should be properly written to accept this at some level otherwise something that returns type T but 0.01% of the time raises "KeyError" should actually be typed "Raises[T, KeyError]".

* PEP 695 will help because typing things particularly is very helpful. Often you want to pass bunch of Ts around but since this is impractical some devs resort to passing "dict[str, Any]"s around and thus things type-check but you still get "KeyError" left and right. It's better to have "SomeStructure[T]" types with "T" as your custom data type (whether dataclass, or pydantic, or traditional class) so that type system has more opportunities to reject bad programs.

* Overall, I'm personally very optimistic about the future of types in Python!

[1] https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/1773

# is fixed: https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/12987.

You probably already know but you can add type hints and then check for consistency with https://github.com/python/mypy in python.

Modern Python with things like https://learnpython.com/blog/python-match-case-statement/ + mypy + Ruff for linting https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff can get pretty good results.

I found typed dataclasses (https://docs.python.org/3/library/dataclasses.html) in python using mypy to give me really high confidence when building data representations.