x^
x*
It seems like either one evaluates the contents of the `box`, and would only make a difference if you tried to use `x` afterwards? Essentially if you final-line eval `x^` and then decide you want to continue that snippet, you can't use `x` anymore because it's been moved. Awkwardly, it also hasn't been assigned so I'm not sure the box is accessible anymore?
More or less. x^ moves the whole box whereas x* copies the contents of the box.
> Awkwardly, it also hasn't been assigned so I'm not sure the box is accessible anymore?
Yes, if you move something and don't assign it then it gets dropped, same as rust.
> Most people who think they have a problem with dynamic typing actually have a problem with weak typing.
Ironically, I would counter that, in my experience, most people who have a problem with static typing actually have a problem with verbose type systems, like Java's or C++'s — or Rust's. (Rust is at least gaining something for its verbosity.)
Type inference is a neat way to bridge the gap. OCaml, Haskell, and Swift (to name a few) all feature distinct type inferencing that give you the benefits of static types without as much syntactic overhead.
It's not just Python too, I've hit the same issue in Common Lisp.
Yes one can run contracts and unit tests and static analysis, but what's a type checker anyway other than a very strict static analysis tool?
No, the real actual problem is with invisibility aka: the absence of readability:
In a "dynamic typing" program the interpreter knows what `a` is but YOU not.
In very strong sense. You can imagine that `a` is a `int` because, well, you write the program, right? But in fact, is only probabilistic assumption.
Some day, `a` will be a program that delete the files of your computer.
It is no accident that all mainstream dynamic languages now have optional typing support, either in the language directly or via linters.
The correct term for languages that don’t have syntactic types is “untyped”.
> Most people who think they have a problem with dynamic typing actually have a problem with weak typing.
All people who say things like this have never studied computer science.
The point of types is to prove the absence of errors. Dynamic typing just has these errors well-structured and early, but they're still errors.