typeshed VS doctest

"csv.pyi is from VS Code Pylance extension" is misleading. Yes, it's included in the code base of the extension, but it's likely originally from python/typeshed. I diffed csv.pyi in the extension and the repository, and they're exactly the same.

You can check the typeshed library that offers stubs for many packages.

https://github.com/python/typeshed is Python's equivalent of DefinitelyTyped. I'm not 100% sure why it's not more of a popular thing the way DefinitelyTyped is; I think there might, to some extent, be different attitudes around the appropriateness of having third-party typings for packages, when the actual maintainer of the package isn't interested in providing first-party ones.

https://github.com/python/mypy same with typeshed https://github.com/python/typeshed

Here's the tensorflow type stubs on typeshed. https://github.com/python/typeshed/tree/main/stubs/tensorflow

Also, be aware that there is already a central place for stubs files. If you are going to take the time to write one, contributing it there will help everyone if the package owners aren't already including some type hints.

Python's type hints are definitely an improvement and they're getting better all the time, but they're still frustrating to use at anything approaching the edge. I long for something as elegant and functional as TypeScript.

One hurdle I've stumbled over recently is the question "what is a type?", the answer can be surprising. Unions, for example, are types but not `Type`s. A function that takes an argument of type `Type` will not accept a Union. So if you want to write a function that effectively "casts" a parameter to a specified type, you can't. The best you can do is have an overload that accepts `Type` and does an actual cast, and then another that just turns it into `Any`. This is, in fact, how the standard library types its `cast` function [1]. The argument I've seen for the current behavior is that `Type` describes anything that can be passed to isinstance, but that's not a satisfying answer. Even then, `Union` can be passed to isinstance and still does not work with `Type`. Talk currently is to introduce a new kind of type called `TypeForm` or something to address this, which is certainly an improvement over nothing, but still feels like technical debt.

[1]: https://github.com/python/typeshed/blob/main/stdlib/typing.p...

>Ultimately if you care enough about Fody to spend over a hundred dollars worth of your time contributing to it, you probably care enough about Fody to drop them three dollars.

No, I really don't.

https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/pull/8500 - I was randomly reading keepassxc's manpage and spotted a curious option, spent some time spelunking through the code and history to discover that it was an outdated option, sent a PR.

https://github.com/python/typeshed/pull/8617 - I converted one of the scripts I use in my DE from shell to Python, saw that VSCode has this new fancy typing support for Python, quickly found a basic bug in the type definitions for the os module, tested a fix locally, sent a PR.

https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/issues/5250 - I found an issue with copy-paste on my phone, investigated it all the way through to the GTK stack, found the commits that introduced the issue, created a distro patch for it while discussing it with GTK upstream.

https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/merge_request... - I noticed that gnome-passwordsafe crashes some times, debugged it to discover that it was missing a dependency, sent a PR to the distro package to update the dependencies.

etc etc. I've made lots of fixes like these. I have no interest in paying for each and every one of them. The projects are all better off for fixes like mine and gatekeeping them on payment would've been nothing but their loss.

The csv module is one of those standard library modules that doesn't provide its own type hints, but instead gets them through the external typeshed project, and (for compatibility/implementation reasons, I surmise) the name of these types sometimes don't quite align with the objects they correspond to. So, for all intents and purposes, _csv._reader is the correct name of the type that csv.reader() returns, as ugly as it is.

You have to do handling like that in other languages like TypeScript anyway.

Painpoint with type annotations:

- not being able to reuse "shapes" of data: TypedDict, NamedTuple, dataclasses.dataclass, and soon kwargs (PEP 692 [1]) all have named, typed fields now. You have to

- Since there's no generic "shape" structure that works across data types, there isn't a way to load up a JSON / YAML / TOML into a dictionary, upcast it via a `TypedGuard`, and pass it into a TypedDict / NamedTuple / Dataclass. dataclasses.asdict() or dataclasses.astuple() return naive / untyped tuples and dicts. Also the factory functions will not work with TypedDict or NamedTuple, respectively, even if you duplicate the fields by hand. See my post here: https://github.com/python/typeshed/issues/8580

- Standard library doesn't have runtime validation (e.g. pydantic / https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic).

- pytest fixtures are hard.

- Django is hard. PEP 681 may not be a saving grace either. [3]

[1] https://peps.python.org/pep-0692/

I have never used "tools" for unit-tests, only web sites that show the results of the tests or code coverage. For C++ I prefer https://github.com/doctest/doctest but most companies I worked for use Catch2.

Do the README and tutorial not explain it well enough? It's a framework for automated unit testing.

This is, honestly, super easy to get going. Nowadays you have a ton of libraries and more-than-decent build systems. With Meson/CMake and Conan/Vcpkg I can set up a project with testing in 3 minutes. Also, I think that at the end of the day you want your tests to live somewhere else. But if you want to embed them, you also have https://github.com/doctest/doctest.

Write some tests. They can find bugs early and give you confidence that your code works so far. That doesn't have to be anything fancy, e.g. with doctest:

Keep in mind https://github.com/doctest/doctest/issues/554. Also, doctest lacks: - Matchers - Data generators - Benchmarking - ...

Your requirements can easily simulated on paper (like increase the speed once, twice, ...), then translated to unit-tests with a framework like https://github.com/doctest/doctest.

I like working in C++, after a decade of working in Java, Python, Javascript and Clojure, I find working in C++ (which I learned before these other languages) to be quite fun and pleasant, at least with relatively modern C++.

I've been, on and off, working on a little toy game engine, for a few years. Its a mix of keeping up with C++ advancements, learning various concepts like physically based rendering, and just the fun of crafting a big project, with no constraints other than my time and ability, no deadlines, no expectation of releasing anything. Its cathartic and enjoyable. I really do enjoy it.

Last September, I got frustrated with something I was working on in a more serious capacity. It was some server software, it responded to HTTP requests, it accessed third party services over HTTP and Websockets, it talked to a Postgres database. Overall it was an event driven system that transformed data and generated actions that would be applied by talking to third party services. The "real" version was written in Clojure and it worked pretty well. I really like Clojure, so all good.

But because I was frustrated with some things about how it ran and the resources it took up, I wondered what it would be like if I developed a little lean-and-mean version in C++. So I gave it a try as a side project for a few weeks. I used doctest[1] for testing, immer[2] for Clojure-like immutable data structures, [3] lager for Elm-like application state and logic management, Crow[4] for my HTTP server, ASIO[5] and websocketpp[6] for Websockets, cpp-httplib[7] as a HTTP client and PGFE[8] for Postgres, amongst some other little utility libraries. I also wrote it in a Literate Programming style using Entangled[9], which helped me keep everything well documented and explained.

For the most part, it worked pretty well. Using immer and lager helped keep the logic safe and to the point. The application started and ran very quickly and used very little cpu or memory. However, as the complexity grew, especially when using template heavy libraries like lager, or dealing with complex things like ASIO, it became very frustrating to deal with errors. Template errors even on clang became incomprehensible and segmentation faults when something wasn't quite right became pretty hard to diagnose. I had neither of these problems working on my game engine, but both became issues on this experiment. After a few weeks, I gave up on it. I do think I could have made it work and definitely could go back and simplify some of the decisions I made to make it more manageable, but ultimately, it was more work than I had free time to dedicate to it.

So my experience was that, yes, you can write high level application logic for HTTP web backends in C++. You can even use tools like immer or lager to make it feel very functional-programming in style and make the application logic really clean. Its not hard to make it run efficiently both in terms of running time and memory usage, certainly when comparing to Clojure or Python. However, I found that over all, it just wasn't as easy or productive as either of those languages and I spent more time fighting the language deficiencies, even with modern C++, than I do when using Clojure or Python.

I think I would think very long and hard before seriously considering writing a web backend in C++. If I had the time, I'd love to retry the experiment but using Rust, to see how it compares.

[1] https://github.com/doctest/doctest

[2] https://github.com/arximboldi/immer

[3] https://github.com/arximboldi/lager

[4] https://github.com/CrowCpp/crow

[5] https://think-async.com/Asio/

[6] https://www.zaphoyd.com/projects/websocketpp/

[7] https://github.com/yhirose/cpp-httplib

[8] https://github.com/dmitigr/pgfe

[9] https://entangled.github.io/

For stuff like this which is very easy to test (very predefined input vs output), I highly suggest using some testing framework. Catch2 is great, but there is also doctest and good ole googletest. If you do this, it would also be a great intro to CI, where you do some plumbing on github or gitlab where every commit causes a build to happen on their servers and run through the unit tests, and if it passes it gets merged into master.

doctest is my favorite framework. Really simple to use, header only, supports compile-time tests, lots of features and it works well with cmake.