Announcing the Beta release of ty

by gavide • 7 months ago

854 179 7 months ago

Ch00k• 7 months ago

That's great news! TIL that ty is also a language server, which means it replaces not only mypy, but also Pyright in Neovim/VSCode.

BiteCode_dev3• 7 months ago

Having fast and reliable code indexing, enable good "go to definition", completion and auto import is actually very exciting.

Pyright/pylance were a boon because they were the first non-pycharm good implementation.

But they still have rough edges and will fail from time to time, not to mention the latency.

modeless3• 7 months ago

The title of this story should be "Announcing the Beta release of ty". A lot of people have been waiting for the beta specifically.

I've been using Pyrefly and loving it compared to Pyright, but they recently shipped some updates with crash bugs that forced me to pin to a previous version, which is annoying. Unfortunately my first impression of ty isn't great either. Trying to install the ty extension on the current version of Cursor says "Can't install 'astral-sh.ty' extension because it is not compatible with the current version of Cursor (version 2.2.20, VSCode version 1.105.1)."

charliermarsh• 7 months ago

If there's anything else accompanying the error, do you mind filing an issue? I've been using the ty extension with Cursor for weeks and am having trouble reproducing right now.

modeless3• 7 months ago

That's the full error. It shows up in a dialog box when I press the install button. I'm on macOS, connected with the Anysphere Remote SSH extension to a Linux machine.

If I choose "install previous version" I am able to install the pre-release version from 12 hours ago without issue. Then on the extension page I get a button labeled "Switch to Release Version" and when I press it I get an error that says "Can't install release version of 'ty' extension because it has no release version." Filed a GitHub issue with these details.

In the meantime, the previous version appears to be working well! I like that it worked without any configuration. The Pyrefly extension needed a config tweak to work.

ocamoss• 7 months ago

(pyrefly maintainer here) If you haven't already, please file an issue for that crash on the [Pyrefly repo](https://github.com/facebook/pyrefly) as well :)

chombier• 7 months ago

Apart from installation problems/crash issues, do you have some feedback about type checking with ty vs. pyrefly? Which is stricter, soundness issues, etc?

Both are rust/open-source/new/fast so it's difficult to understand why I should choose one over the other.

frou_dh• 7 months ago

Hopefully it gets added to this comparison:

https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/python/typ...

If that table is anything to go by, Pyright is not to be underestimated.

I have briefly tried ty (LSP) in Emacs and it seems to work well so far. The only questionable thing I've encountered is that when the signature of a method is shown, the type annotations of some parameters seem to be presented in a particularly verbose form compared to what I'm used to - maybe they're technically correct but it can be bit much to look at.

Anyway, odds are pretty good that ty is what I will end up using long-term, so thanks and congrats on releasing the first beta!

_carljm3• 7 months ago

We'll be adding ourselves to that table soon. We'll have some work to catch up with pyright on conformance, but that's what the time between now and stable release is for.

IshKebab• 7 months ago

Pyright is really really good. Anyone that doubts that 10x engineers exist, just go and look at Eric Traut. He's pretty much written it single handedly. Absolute machine.

Mypy is trash. Nice to have a table to point to to prove it.

buibuibui• 7 months ago

Oh my, I just looked him up. He is the developer of Virtual Game Station - a PS1 emulator that I used in the past to play PS Isos on my Windows ME PC! What a legend.

davidhalter4• 7 months ago

Mypy is not trash at all. It is still the most precise type checker, supports a lot of complicated cases and has plugins that make a lot of things more type safe. I believe Mypy is severely underrated and a lot of people believe that it's not as good as Pyright because of the conformance tests.

The problem is that the conformance tests were mostly written by Eric Traut, so there's a natural bias towards specifying what Pyright does well. There's a lot of things Mypy does really well that should probably be implemented in Pyright.

progbits2• 7 months ago

pyright is very good, but there is also https://docs.basedpyright.com/latest/ which improves on it further.

That said I'm very happy user of uv, so once Ty becomes ready enough will be happy to migrate.

conception• 7 months ago

Basedpyright plus any AI generated python is a hellscape unless you use hooks and have a lot of patience.

WD-422• 7 months ago

Pyright has been great. But it’s slow. Speed of a LSP does matter for UX. Excited to see how much ty improves on this.

morkalork• 7 months ago

Is it wrong to to say that I don't like pyright on principle because it requires node.js and npm to install and run?

wiz21c• 7 months ago

I think it is way to slow too. The one from microsoft (pylance IIRC) is better in my opinion.

linhns3• 7 months ago

Pyright is a type checker, not a LSP per se in my opinion. ty is both.

hauntsaninja5• 7 months ago

Note: while spec conformance is important, I don't recommend using it as the basis for choosing a type checker. It is not representative of the things that most users actually care about (and is not meant to be).

(I was on the Python Typing Council and helped put together the spec, the conformance test suite, etc)

SmileyKeith2• 7 months ago

Can you add some examples of the things users care about that aren't well covered by this? I empathize with everyone who wants a feature comparison chart so they can be confident switching without unknowingly losing important safety checks.

SSchick• 7 months ago

https://github.com/python/typing/pull/2137

PR is somewhat WIP-ish but I needed some motivation to do OSS work again :)

CyberThijs• 7 months ago

For those interested: the results page in this PR looks like this:

https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/SimonSchic...

maxloh• 7 months ago

How conformant is this, compared to e.g. mypy?

danudey• 7 months ago

FWIW MyPy is not very conformant: https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/python/typ...

the-wumpus3• 7 months ago

It's not great, but in this very thread there's a person from the conformance team that says that it shouldn't sway your choice too much.

https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/SimonSchic...

almanael• 7 months ago

Not impressed because when tried ruff, and discovered that it doesn't replace (basic) pylint check https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970 so we have ruff then pylint (and looking at the number of awaiting PR of ruff feels bad)

zanie3• 7 months ago

As noted in the linked issue

At time of writing, many of the remaining rules require type inference and/or multi-file analysis, and aren't ready to be implemented in Ruff.

ty is actually a big step in this direction as it provides multi-file analysis and type inference.

(I work at Astral)

int_19h• 7 months ago

Are you guys planning to tackle Python debugging next? pydevd could really use a fast native rewrite targeting modern Python.

caidan2• 7 months ago

Ruff is incredible, replacing a mountain of tools and rules with a single extremely fast linter/formatter. Given that it is updated and improved frequently, I’m curious if you have tried it recently, and if so what pylint rules are you using that it doesn’t cover?

f311a• 7 months ago

Too bad they did not benchmark Zuban, which is also promising.

Also, it's also too bad we have three competing fast LSP/typechecker projects now We had zero 1 year ago.

iamdanieljohns• 7 months ago

The guy behind Zuban should've put his project out the in open way earlier. I'd love to see both projects succeed, but in reality it should become one.

arthur-st• 7 months ago

For real. I consider myself to be “into Python typing,” and yet I had no knowledge of Zuban before the parent comment and a very faint memory of Jedi.

davidhalter4• 7 months ago

Zuban maybe doesn't succeed in terms of the amount of users, but it's nearly finished, supports the full Python type system (I'm in the process of completing the conformance tests), has support for Django and LSP support is also pretty much complete. So in a technical way it did already succeed.

It might not be used as much, but to be honest I think that's fine. I'm not a big VC-funded company and just hope to be able to serve the users it has. There's space for multiple tools in this area and it's probably good to have multiple type checkers in the Python world to avoid the typical VC rug pull.

Svoka• 7 months ago

Very excited to see this. I thought that speed does not matter much for python tooling, but then I tried uv, and realized that I was wrong. The experience is just better. Looking forward to see more high performance quality tooling for Python.

tabbott2• 7 months ago

Very exciting! I guess I'll have to wait for Django and Pydantic support to migrate to it on Zulip, but type checking was the last major linter that's still slow in Python.

Zababa• 7 months ago

Beautiful acknowledgment list, and congratulations on the beta release!

klysm• 7 months ago

I really hope astral can monetize without a highly destructive rugpull, because they are building great tools and solving real problems.

tabbott2• 7 months ago

Yeah their work thus far has been an incredible public service to the Python community.

amanzi• 7 months ago

"pyx" is their first commercial offering: https://astral.sh/pyx

I agree though. Hope this is successful and they keep building awesome open-source tools.

clircle• 7 months ago

Why the “y” look so wrong in the special font.

jbmsf3• 7 months ago

We're paying for pyx. Wouldn't have if we didn't enjoy enjoy uv and ruff.

It's definitely a narrow path for them to tread. Feels like the best case is something like Hashicorp, great until the founders don't want to do it anymore.

tyre• 7 months ago

Feels like they’re headed in the direction of bun.

mi_lk• 7 months ago

In zero revenue or acquisition direction

bmitc2• 7 months ago

My issue with them is that they claim their tools replace existing tools, but they don't bother to actually replicate all of the functionality. So if you want to use the full functionality of existing tools, you need to fall back on them instead of using Astral's "replacements". It's like one step forward and one step back. For me personally, speed of the tooling is not as important as what the tooling can check, which is very important for a language like Python that is very easy to get wrong.

woodruffw4• 7 months ago

If there are specific incompatibilities or rough edges you're running into, we're always interested in hearing about them. We try pretty hard to provide a pip compatibility layer[1], but Python packaging is non-trivial and has a lot of layers and caveats.

[1] https://docs.astral.sh/uv/pip/

eyeris• 7 months ago

Got any examples in mind?

amluto3• 7 months ago

Their integration with existing tools seems to be generally pretty good.

For example, uv-build is rather lacking in any sort of features (and its documentation barely exists AFAICT, which is a bit disappointing), but uv works just fine with hatchling, using configuration mechanisms that predate uv.

(I spent some time last week porting a project from an old, entirely unsupportable build system to uv + hatchling, and I came out of it every bit as unimpressed by the general state of Python packaging as ever, but I had no real complaints about uv. It would be nice if there was a build system that could go even slightly off the beaten path without writing custom hooks and mostly inferring how they’re supposed to work, though. I’m pretty sure that even the major LLMs only know how to write a Python package configuration because they’ve trained on random blog posts and some GitHub packages that mostly work — they’re certainly not figuring anything out directly from the documentation, nor could they.)

BiteCode_dev3• 7 months ago

Damn it, this unicorn farting rainbows and craping gold is not yet capable of towing another car. I don't know why they advertise it as a replacement for my current mode of transportation.

Gabrys1• 7 months ago

Getting from 95% compatible to 100% compatible may not only take a lot of time, but also result in worsening the performance. Sometimes it's good to drop some off the less frequently used features in order to make the tool better (or allow for making the tool better)

pansa23• 7 months ago

I still don’t understand how a single language can have multiple (what is it now, half a dozen?) different type checkers, all with different behaviour.

Do library authors have to test against every type checker to ensure maximum compatibility? Do application developers need to limit their use of libraries to ones that support their particular choice of type checker?

WD-422• 7 months ago

You’re talking about a duck typed language with optional type annotations. I love python but that’s a combination that should explain a bit why there are so many different implementations.

MangoToupe5• 7 months ago

It doesn't. Either the optional type annotations have precise semantics or they don't.

mirashii• 7 months ago

Do library authors have to test against every type checker to ensure maximum compatibility?

Yes, but in practice, the ecosystem mostly tests against mypy. pyright has been making some inroads, mostly because it backs the diagnostics of the default VS Code Python extension.

Do application developers need to limit their use of libraries to ones that support their particular choice of type checker?

You can provide your own type stubs instead of using the library's built-in types or existing stubs.

mikepurvis• 7 months ago

At least some of it is differing policies on what types can be inferred/traced through the callers vs what has to be given explicitly.

I think everyone basically agrees that at the package boundary, you want explicit types, but inside application code things are much more murky.

(plus of course, performance, particularly around incremental processing, which Astral is specifically calling out as a design goal here)

carderne• 7 months ago

Users of a library will generally instruct their type-checker not to check the library.

So only the outer API surface of the library matters. That’s mostly explicitly typed functions and classes so the room for different interpretations is lower (but not gone).

This is obviously out the window for libraries like Pydantic, Django etc with type semantics that aren’t really covered by the spec.

lou1306• 7 months ago

I am not that surprised, to be honest. Basically every C/C++ static analyzer out there does (among other things) some amount of additional "custom" type checking to catch operations that are legal up to the standard, but may cause issues at runtime. Of course in Python you have gradual typing which adds to the complexity, but truly well-formalised type systems are not that common in the industry.

0cf8612b2e1e2• 7 months ago

Without digging too deep- what is the Django story?

Django does a bunch of magic which is challenging for the type checkers to handle well.

selcuka2• 7 months ago

Ty doesn't support Django yet, and it doesn't have a plugin system, so third party developers can't improve it. If you need Django support, it is better to stick to mypy or pyright for the time being.

0cf8612b2e1e2• 7 months ago

Is Django planned? Or always going to be a non first party kind of deal?

davidhalter4• 7 months ago

Feel free to use Zuban, it already supports Django models and is way ahead in typing support (and it's probably as fast as Ty).

fkarg• 7 months ago

well, this is where being pedantic bites me in the a* again. Our codebase has been mostly pyright-focused, with many very specific `pyright: ignore[...]` pragmas. Now it would be great if ty (pyrefly has an option!) could also ignore those lines. There's not _that_ many of them, but .... it's a pain.

syiblet• 7 months ago

The codebase has none of the rust code. In fact even the python code in the code base is mostly just scripts for updating version tags and etc...

Seems like the code isn't actually open source which to me is a bit concerning. At the very least, if ya'll want to release it like this please be clear that you're not open source. The MIT license in the repo gives the wrong impression.

woodruffw4• 7 months ago

The ty repo contains the ruff repo[1] as a submodule, where the remainder of the code is. It is indeed open source, the layout is just indirect at the moment because of code-sharing between the tools.

[1] https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff

zanie3• 7 months ago

This is also documented at https://github.com/astral-sh/ty?tab=readme-ov-file#contribut... and https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#re...

bobthecowboy• 7 months ago

At least as of a couple months ago, `ty` was actually being developed in the `ruff` repo (per an pdocast interview the devs did on Talk Python), so that might be why the `ty` repo looks empty (and pulls in ruff as a git submodule).

simonw• 7 months ago

I think that's because most of the code for `ty` is tucked away in the `ruff` codebase: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/tree/main/crates/ty - it's all MIT licensed.

shrumm2• 7 months ago

Thanks Astral team! We use Pydantic heavily, and it looks like first class support from Ty is slated for the stable release, we'd love to try it.

While we wait... what's everyone's type checking setup? We run both Pyright and Mypy... they catch different errors so we've kept both, but it feels redundant.

https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/python/typ... suggests that Pyright is a superset, which hasn't matched our experience.

Though our analysis was ~2 years ago. Anyone with a large Python codebase successfully consolidated to just Pyright?

hauntsaninja5• 7 months ago

Mentioned this in another comment, but the spec conformance suite is not representative of the things users care about (nor is it meant to be).

The spec mostly concerns itself with the semantics of annotations, not diagnostics or inference. I don't really recommend using it as the basis for choosing a type checker.

(I was on the Python Typing Council and helped put together the spec, the conformance test suite, etc)

gwking• 7 months ago

I appreciate the even tempered question. I’ve been using mypy since its early days, and when pyright was added to vs code I was forced to reckon with their differences. For the most part I found mypy was able to infer more accurately and flexibly. At various times I had to turn pyright off entirely because of false positives. But perhaps someone else would say that I’m leaning on weaknesses of mypy; I think I’m pretty strict but who knows. And like yourself, mine is a rather dated opinion. It used to be that every mypy release was an event, where I’d have a bunch of new errors to fix, but that lessened over the years.

I suspect pyright has caught up a lot but I turned it off again rather recently.

For what it’s worth I did give up on cursor mostly because basedpyright was very counterproductive for me.

I will say that I’ve seen a lot more vehement trash talking about mypy and gushing about pyright than vice versa for quite a few years. It doesn’t quite add up in my mind.

shrumm2• 7 months ago

I will say that I’ve seen a lot more vehement trash talking about mypy and gushing about pyright than vice versa for quite a few years. It doesn’t quite add up in my mind.

agreed! mypy's been good to us over the years.

The biggest problem we're looking to solve now is raw speed, type checking is by far the slowest part of our precommit stack which is what got us interested in Ty.

hauntsaninja5• 7 months ago

I’ve added ecosystem regression checks to every Python type checker and typeshed via https://github.com/hauntsaninja/mypy_primer. This helped a tonne with preventing unintended or overly burdensome regressions in mypy, so glad to hear upgrades are less of an Event for you

collinmcnulty• 7 months ago

I am so pleased by ty’s stance that I should not have to add annotations to satisfy the type checker. I ripped out last type checker out because it was constantly nagging us about technicalities, but ty immediately found issues where we annotated that a duct was an acceptable input, but actually doing so would break things.

akdor1154• 7 months ago

Wow, even if it wasn't so fast, I'd be tempted to use this solely due to their support of intersection (A & B) types! This is a sore omission from the standard python typing system.

hexo2• 7 months ago

rust again? ill skip

sails013• 7 months ago

Is there any study that shows that typing in Python improves code quality and reduce runtime issues?

hexo2• 7 months ago

Well, it's just a documentation suggestion for user. Having for me about same value as if it was written in pydoc. I'd really love to see such study as well

sails013• 7 months ago

Agree, we already had a solution documenting types in docstring.

In my case they just add noise when reading code and make it more difficult to review

bmitc2• 7 months ago

That's equivalent to asking if there are benefits of static typing.

sails013• 7 months ago

Not quite, static typing is used at runtime, python type annotations are not

pansa23• 7 months ago

Specifically, it's like asking if there are any studies that demonstrate benefits of static typing. Are there?

kurtis_reed2• 7 months ago

Newsflash: not everything good has a study about it

wiseowise3• 7 months ago

Ughm, is there any study that shows that guardrails and lights on bridges reduce fatalities?
Akshually, are there any studies showing that cars riding 30 km/h kill less people than cars that ride 80 km/h?

dllthomas• 7 months ago

I think there are both of those.

solarkraft2• 7 months ago

it has been consensus for decades at this point.

numbers• 7 months ago

is there anything like `uv` available for ruby? going from python and typescript where I can use uv and bun, it feels like ruby is stuck in the past :(

pansa23• 7 months ago

Rv, a new kind of Ruby management tool:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45023730

pcwelder2• 7 months ago

Displaying inferred types inline is a killer feature (inspired from rust lang server?). It was a pleasant surprise!

It's fast too as promised.

However, it doesn't work well with TypedDicts and that's a show-stopper for us. Hoping to see that support soon.

sharkdp2• 7 months ago

We should generally support TypeDicts. Can you go into more details of what is not working for you?

pcwelder2• 7 months ago

```

from anthropic.types import MessageParam

data: list[MessageParam] = [{"role": "user", "content": [{"type": "text", "text": ""}]}]

```

This for example works both in mypy and pyright. (Also autocompletion of typedict keys / literals from pylance is missing)

parham• 7 months ago

Django support will be a game changer on top of the game changer ty is!

lysecret• 7 months ago

Super excited about this generally ok satisfied with pyright but so I was with conda before uv or black before ruff.

falcor84• 7 months ago

I was reading the list of their offerings in the footer and for a second was very excited by the 5th item:

RUFF 0.14.9
UV 0.9.18
TY 0.0.2
PYX Beta
GITHUB

petesergeant2• 7 months ago

Python programmers are crying out for types it seems. It’s a shame the Python foundation haven’t blessed a spec. Better to get everyone working on a single slightly imperfect standard than a morass or differing ideas.

ReflectedImage4• 7 months ago

Speaking as a Python programmer, no. Using types in a prototyping language is madness.

The point is you drop things such as types to enable rapid iteration which enables you to converge to the unknownable business requirements faster.

If you want slow development with types, why not Java?

philipallstar• 7 months ago

Using types in a prototyping language is madness.

It's not a prototyping language or a scripting language or whatever. It's just a language. And types are useful, especially when you can opt out of type checking when you need to. Most of the time you don't want to be reassigning variables to be different types anyway, even though occasionally an escape hatch is nice.

solarkraft2• 7 months ago

because i want fast development with types.

maccard2• 7 months ago

Have you written any go code? it's the closest I've come to actually enjoying a type system - it gets out of your way, and loosely enforces stuff. It could do with some more convenience methods, but overall I'd say it's my most _efficient_ type system. (not necessarily the best)

petesergeant2• 7 months ago

If you can’t do fast prototypes with types, you need to get better at using types. It’s very fast to throw stuff together in TypeScript.

woodruffw4• 7 months ago

Could you elaborate on what you mean? There are various typing PEPs; they even have their own category[1].

[1] https://peps.python.org/topic/typing/

dcreager3• 7 months ago

And the PEPs are now collated into a larger single typing spec [1], even hosted on a python.org subdomain. (Previously it was hosted on readthedocs)

[1] https://typing.python.org/en/latest/

wiseowise3• 7 months ago

Jesus, how long will we need this shite? Can't someone from MS fix this already? Or is it possible for Astral to implement fully fledged Python extension so you don't have to use Microsoft crap that includes proprietary pylance?

``` It's recommended to disable the language server from the Python extension to avoid running two Python language servers by adding the following setting to your settings.json:

{ "python.languageServer": "None" } ```

caidan2• 7 months ago

You guys are a godsend to the python tooling world. I’ve been far more excited about the impact rust is having on the software world than that of AI, and your work is a big part of that. While I have not seen any real net productivity gains from AI in mine or my juniors work, I’ve definitely seen real gains from using your tooling!

In fact as Jetbrains has been spending years chasing various rabbits including AI, instead of substantially improving or fixing PyCharm, without you steadily replacing/repairing big chunks of Pycharms functionality I would be miserable. If it came down to it, we would happily pay a reasonable license fee to use your tools as long as they stayed free for non-commercial usage.

linhns3• 7 months ago

Nice to see Pycharm going downhill being mentioned. Nice tool in the past, not much so now.

albert_e• 7 months ago

Slight tangent

I recently viewed tutorials on uv and ruff from Corey Schafer on youtube which were excellent

Hope to make these tools part of my defaults

Look forward a similar overview by Corey on ty :)

Curious ..is there any backstory to these library names?

japhyr• 7 months ago

I believe the've been looking for two-letter names that aren't already taken, and are easy to type. I think I heard that from one of the podcasts that Charlie Marsh was on.

benrutter2• 7 months ago

Source here for anyone interested[0]. From memory, Ruff was its own thing, (I think named after the bird?) since then they've tried to give projects short letter combinations for consistency and ease of typing (uv, ty, pyx)

[0] https://talkpython.fm/episodes/download/520/pyx-the-other-si...

superlopuh• 7 months ago

We've been relying on TypeForm (an experimental feature in Pyright) in xDSL. Since there are some Astral members commenting here: are there any plans to support TypeForm any time soon? It seems like you already have some features that go beyond the Python type spec, so I feel like there may be hope

dcreager3• 7 months ago

Yes, we love TypeForm! We plan to support it as soon as the PEP for it lands. Under the covers, we already support much of what's needed, and use it for some of our special-cased functions like `ty_extensions.is_equivalent_to` [1,2]. TypeForm proper has been lower on the priority list mostly because we have a large enough backlog as it is, and that lets us wait to make sure there aren't any last-minute changes to the syntax.

[1] https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/0bd7a94c2732c232cc142...

[2] https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/0bd7a94c2732c232cc142...

maccard2• 7 months ago

I was underwhelmed by uv as a tool when it was announced, and when I started using it. For context, I'm a C++ developer who occasionally has to dip into python-land for scripts and tooling. I set up a new workstation about 6 months ago and decided I'd just use pip + venv again, and honestly I lasted 2 weeks before installing UV again. It's one of those tools that... doesn't really do much except _what you wanted the original tool to do_, and I'm hoping that Ty has the same effect.

Atomic_Torrfisk• 7 months ago

Serious question, Do we need another type checker in Python?

I've never really felt the existing options were lacking for our use case. Completely fair game if this was just a passion project, but at this point at best this feels like noise, at worst some overzealous developer is going to implement this in my teams pipeline and waste time. Waste his time because the existing type checker did the job and there was not reason to change it, and waste our time because they will likely change (probably tighten) the existing behavior and waste our time while we adapt our habits to it.

the-wumpus3• 7 months ago

The existing type checkers are slow. That's their reasoning for creating it. The type checking world in python is now reasonably well specified (and the type checkers are beginning to work more similarly), so I would expect (once ty is out of beta) you could replace your type checker with ty and just see a 20x speedup in CI and much much faster IDE diagnostics.

If it was going from 3s -> 1s then you'd probably be right, but on my work codebase pyright (which is the faster one!) takes 15 seconds (ty takes 0.8s) and takes a bit for errors to appear in the IDE. This is now fast enough for us (mypy was taking >30s, which was not fast enough), but if the project grew another order of magnitude (which it might) then it would probably be too slow.

It's the same reason ruff is great, linting the codebase is so so fast.

Perepiska• 7 months ago

So I've decided to give it a try. Open installation instructions and went thru "easy install with uvx" / "get and run our sgell script" until get "pip install ty". I do not want use other tools so I started it in pet project directory as "ty check". Is shows me progressbar and "98/99 files" then hang. I restarted it and it hung on "68/99" and started using 100% of cpu core. I waited for 15 min and killed it. Try to get more information about current file but there is no verbose mode but colorful "ty --help" output. Lets wait for a year then try again.

Edit: +"then try again"

dcreager3• 7 months ago

There was a hang/performance bug [1, 2] that was reported just after the beta release, which we've since fixed [3]. You might try seeing if we get through your entire project now?

(And as an aside, there _is_ a verbose mode: if you add `-vv` you'll get DEBUG-level log messages printing out the name of each file as we start to check it, and you can set TY_MAX_PARALLELISM=1 in your env to make it very clear which file is causing the hang. That's how we debug these kinds of issues when they're reported to us.)

[1] https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1968

[2] https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1993

[3] https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/22030

lucas_membrane• 7 months ago

I just found out that if one is developing a wxPython app, this:

menuFont = wx.Font(12, wx.DEFAULT, wx.NORMAL, wx.NORMAL) # 12pt font

Will be flagged as an error by ty, wx.DEFAULT and wx.NORMAL being some kind of wxPython place holder that wxPython can interpret into a value later on, not a value just yet. Can you get past that kind of late binding?

Announcing the Beta release of ty

Related Stories