As a big fan of statically typed languages, I agree with you on the utility. Especially after having worked on a large Python projects a few years ago and having to spend a lot of time figuring out what, exactly I could do with a argument named “session”. But when you start turning your dynamically types languages into an ugly statically typed one, maybe we should just admit that we’re using the wrong tool for the job.
Is the point where your Python codebase needs type hinting to be readable a signal that you've hit the dynamic language/complexity impedance mismatch?
Or is it a sign that your code's readability could be better?
Your "session" remark reminds me of trying to understand the Ruby IMAP library when the only documentation was autogenerated API docs, I had to follow one variable through the entire stack to figure out what it's original type and thus capability, was.
I taught myself to code in Python, and find that well-written Python makes sense without types (tooling support aside), but then being honest, most of the Python code I meet professionally, is barely okay written.
I guess it's like Java, industrial programming code needs a type system to make code written averagely understandable, but not so much of a type system that you spend your time fighting obscure compiler errors.
