Hey everyone! I'm a freelance machine learning engineer and data analyst, mostly using Python, and C for heavy computations where libraries like NumPy can't help. I've built several small scripts and mid-sized projects, and I admire functional programming principles. I strive for modularity, placing related code into separate functions.
I follow a strict function-designing convention where I require fixed input types for my functions. For instance, if a function expects a regular list, it should only accept that, not any similar types like a NumPy array or a tuple. Python is dynamically typed, so type-hinting isn't strict, which can lead to invalid inputs disrupting my program flow. I've found that manual type-checking doesn't significantly impact performance, so I'm considering implementing it despite the potential computational overhead when dealing with nested functions:
1. Should I enable manual type-checking if I don't use linters?
Additionally, I need to ensure that arguments also fall within permitted value sets, which can be a hassle with many nested functions. While using `assert` statements helps, they don't fully address my concerns. I've also experimented with defining "clone functions" for error-free internal usage, and using a global variable to switch error-checking on and off.
2. What's the best approach to ensure my functions stick to functional programming practices while balancing efficiency and readability?
Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated! Looking forward to your insights!
5 Answers
Instead of using clone functions, maybe think about just having your core logic in a separate inner function that handles all the work without checks, while a wrapper function does the validation. This way, you maintain separation of concerns while optimizing performance!
I like this idea! It could help keep the code neat.
Using libraries that support functional programming is a good idea, but just make sure you're type-hinting appropriately. Typing with specific types might prevent using something like tuples, which could reduce flexibility. So it’s worth weighing your design choices against practical needs.
I hadn’t thought about flexibility—thanks for pointing that out! I’ll reconsider my approach.
Absolutely! Always find a balance between strictness and flexibility.
Using `python -O file.py` will disable `assert`s, which can help with your type-checks. If you really love functional programming, consider defining types with mandatory constructors that prevent invalid states from occurring at all. For example, you could use a class with strict checks during initialization to ensure that only valid types are accepted. Also, since you're mainly writing for yourself, try using type checkers and linters to enforce these rules when you code. Check out `pyright && ruff check` for a straightforward setup that won’t clutter your environment!
I second using type checkers and linters. They make life so much easier!
What do you mean by "obligate constructors"? I've never heard that term before, could you expand on it?
Consider using Pydantic for handling external inputs more effectively. It could take care of type validation during function calls at runtime, which might be a nice compromise for your needs. Plus, if you use Pydantic, you might avoid a lot of the frustration that comes with manual checks, letting functions focus solely on their logic instead!
For functions that need strict type checks, don't stress out too much about the bad influence of dynamic typing. Yeah, you should type-hint your parameters to expect specific types, but you don't have to enforce it at every level unless absolutely necessary. Remember, Python's design is about flexibility. For your first question, maybe avoid manual type-checking for all functions unless they are direct public interfaces—keep it as streamlined as possible.
Thanks for the insight! I appreciate your take on it.
Also, consider just keeping certain validations in a few critical areas of your code instead of everywhere. It might save you a lot of headache.
Great suggestion! This approach sounds much cleaner. Thanks!