> I think that type hint are making python source code messy and unreadable.
I hear this sentiment a lot from people who rarely use strict(er) typed languages: Rust, C++, Java, C#, Go, etc. Can you imagine a developer in any of those languages complaining that "oh, now the code is messy and unreadable because we added explicit types"? It seems bizarre to think about it. Sure, Java and C# is a bit repetitive, but at least you always know the type.
There is an ongoing debate in C++, Java, and C# if the newish keyword "auto"/"var" is a good idea to hide local variable explicit types. The real issue: For the person who wrote the code, they already know the implicit types.. However, for people reading the code, they have a harder time to understand the implicit types.
> Python used to be described as "executable pseudocode"
And that's never been true once you're past toy examples into real-world programs. I agree that type hints are "ugly" to read, but they make the code much easier to understand. You have to be aware of the types anyway, and it's better to have them explicit in the code than in your head.
You can still have duck typing with Protocols if you like that kind of thing. Explicitly saying what you expect the incoming type to be able to do is much better than reading the code and having to track all the attributes and methods so you know what you can use.
There is an ongoing debate in C++, Java, and C# if the newish keyword "auto"/"var" is a good idea to hide local variable explicit types. The real issue: For the person who wrote the code, they already know the implicit types.. However, for people reading the code, they have a harder time to understand the implicit types.